Here it comes–a carbon tax

Obama May Levy Carbon Tax to Cut the U.S. Deficit, HSBC Says

By Mathew Carr – Bloomberg News

Barack Obama may consider introducing a tax on carbon emissions to help cut the U.S. budget deficit after winning a second term as president, according to HSBC Holdings Plc.

A carbon tax starting at $20 a ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021, Nick Robins, an analyst at the bank in London, said today in an e-mailed research note, citing Congressional Research Service estimates.

“Applied to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022,” Robins said.

h/t to WUWT reader “dp”

About these ads

326 thoughts on “Here it comes–a carbon tax

  1. Idiot! A tax isn’t going to cut the deficit. It’s simply another cost of doing business, which is passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices and bills. Consumers then spend less on other items. It’s a push pull world. Worse, a carbon tax will make EVERYTHING more expensive, not simply electricity, but every single thing we eat and purchase.

  2. Deb Scott says:

    November 7, 2012 at 8:27 am

    and that money will be going in whose pocket?

    Uh, worse – whose pockets will it come out of?

  3. I’m not all that good at Math, but how does $154bn halve a fiscal deficit of over a $1,000bn a year by the year 2020?

  4. He would have to get it through a Republican House unless he could find a regulatory way to do it with the EPA (if I were a betting man….)

  5. 154 billions a year? Still, that’s not enough to overcome spending deficit unless we completely gutted military budget… which is Obama’s goal anyway.

  6. Deutsche Bank shut down their emissions trading group. Looks like HSBC is trying to keep theirs going. Good luck with that.

  7. Yesterday I voted for change and hoped nothing like this was going to happen. That didn’t work out very well.

  8. Doesn’t have a prayer to get through the Republican-controlled House or Representatives.
    Dead on Arrival.
    Obama’s angle is to penalize energy intensive companies through the EPA, by declaring CO2 to be a pollutant. But such action would be challenged in the courts.

    Four more years of gridlock.

    Kurt in Switzerland

  9. The availability of cheap energy is one of the primary movers of any economy. Make it expensive and the economy will not move, it is really about all that simple. Perhaps it is time to get busy with the thorium reactors.

  10. “A carbon tax starting at $20 a ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021″ … until it hammers the economy by way more than $154 billion by 2021.

    Static economic analysis should be illegal.

  11. When people pay more in one part of the economy, they spend less in another. All this will do is reduce tax revenues from other sources while adding an extra bureaucracy.
    At least the carbon tax I pay in B.C. Is revenue neutral and did not raise taxes overall.

  12. Taxing poor people’s energy! Balance the budget on the backs of the poor, truly progressive. Like any of that money would be used to reduce the deficit anyway, just more money for our marxist dictator to kick back to his green energy cronies.

  13. All these p****s who thought they were saving the world are going to get a real wake up right about now.

    In the end it is all about getting an extra dollar out of everyone.

    Wonder how long it will take them to realize they have been played?

  14. Taxes are only introduced to provide for the maintenance of increased debt. At current ratios, the expected revenue from a carbon tax will support?/?justify ~$2 trillion of additional near term debt. The current accounting cost structures for the existing state of our economic system, however, will not allow $2trillion of new debt to be wealth productive because commerce and cost inflation are now intrinsically motivated by the heavy borrowing costs required for personal and enterprise consumption. …The federal Water Mill of tax revenue and government services has become so onerous that it seriously infringes upon the ability of state and local government water mills to manage efficient cash flow/ wealth production.

  15. Lets certainly hope we get a carbon fee (or tax) ASAP. With nuclear power, waste disposal is a significant portion of the total cost. Similarly with fossil fuel based power, the cost of CO2 waste disposal into the atmoshere should also be included and then let the free market system do the rest.

    This, of course, explains why the Fossil Fuel industries deny the science behind AGW. If they did admit that our increased CO2 levels are contributing to global warming, they would have no argument against this “waste disposal” cost. Thus they do their best to try to fool and confuse the public on this issue for as long as they can. In the meantime they make tons of money with BAU.

    Now that our President has another and his last term, I hope he has the courage to do all of the right things wrt AGW. The going will still be very difficult, however, because the scientifically illiterate forces of our country seem to include a major portion of Corporate American whose major interests always seem to be squewed towards the short term benefit of shareholders. Up to now, those forces have controlled our elected officials in Washington. With Omama’s reelection and with the addition of Elizabeth Warren to the Senate, lets hope that things are finally about to change big time wrt the AGW problem. Who knows – one might even dare to hope that the likes of Andrew Watts might also eventually see the obvious science associated the AGW problem and begin to be part of the solution.

  16. Revenue bills originate in the House which is controlled by the Republicans. Carbon tax won’t happen.

  17. The US is in a very precarious financial condition. Yes, we will have to raise money. A carbon tax is better for the US that any other carbon policy, such as cap and trade. Wall St. really wanted cap and trade because they would be able to write all sorts of financial instruments on carbon, derivatives and whatnot. Another chance to fleece the rubes. If the carbon policy of the US is a tax, it will make it a lot harder to have cap and trade in some future presidency.

    I don’t like to get taxed, I don’t like my energy prices to be higher.

    But the fiscal cliff is a reality. We have to deal with it. I’d rather have a carbon tax as part of dealing with the fiscal cliff — even though I don’t buy the BS from Michael Mann and the other purveyors of histrionics about the immediacy of huge harm from warming — as part of a deal to get us off the fiscal cliff, if it means we can bury cap and trade.

  18. Problem is, those $154 billion by 2021… are completely irrelevant. US Treasury just came out expecting the $20 trillion debt to hit by the end of this year. And that’s just for this year. Then Obama will undoubtedly raise the level again and eventually, well, we all know how that will end.

    More taxes lead only to one thing: more spending. I mean, Austria, for example, has the highest tax income ever these days and what is happening? Our national debt is rising like crazy. Why? Because even with our high taxes our so called leaders spend money they don’t have. The more taxes you have, the more freely politicians spend.

  19. First, you bribe voters with public money. Then, you bankrupt the country. Then, you increase taxes for working class to pay the debt, so you can continue to bribe voters by other people’s money.
    Sounds like positive feedback.

  20. The irony of course is that a carbon tax would be very regressive, hitting those who can least afford it the hardest. So much for the dems caring for the little guy. Using weather as an excuse to tax the public , how pathetic! Looks like WUWT will have its hands full for the next 4 years trying to educate the public about what’s really going on in weather & climate.
    Keep fighting the good fight ! That’s all that can be done.

  21. Right after reassuring the voters of Ohio they need not worry about their fledgling energy industry and revived heavy metal manufacturing.

  22. Once the number of voters that derive all or part of their income from taxation outnumber the number of voters that are the subject of taxation the destination is inevitable.

    People that derive income from taxation and return some of that taxation derived income to the government in fact pay no tax; they simply return an amount that will be given to them next year.

    Socialism requires, and seeks to create, people that are dependant on income from taxation. It took 10 Trillion dollars to create the necessary dependants, the die is cast.

    The United States will follow California on their voyage to the Mediterranean coast.

    When will John Galt stand up?

  23. Applied to the baseline… as in IF DC doesn’t continue to spend like a shopaholic watching the “Buy Everything” cable channel at 3 in the morning (leave sailors out of this). That’s gonna happen. Hey, I’ll give you a good price on….

  24. ericgrimsrud says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:51 am

    CO2 in the atmosphere is a benefit, not a harm. We should be subsidizing the introduction of more CO2, not penalizing it.

  25. Looks like the 47% have figured out how to keep the free stuff rolling in. But sooner or later America will run out of other people’s money to spend. Because it is always so.

    California is the next Italy.
    New York is the next Spain.
    And Washington D.C.is Athens on the Potomac.

  26. John says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:53 am

    Yes we do need to decrease the deficit. However the history of tax increases is that they NEVER decrease deficits. The reason for this is two fold.
    First new taxes slow the economy, meaning revenues from other taxes go down, at least partially offseting the money colleced by the new tax.
    Second, new money is always spent.
    As a result, every single time taxes have been raised, the deficit has gotten worse, not better.
    Besides, we are already over taxed.

  27. When a lazy electorate is given the choice of hard work and Santa Clause, which will children choose?

    Yup.

    And a carbon tax is just another trick out of the big red bag.

    (Romney had 2.5 million fewer votes than McCain. Apparently we’re not teaching work ethics anymore.)

  28. John says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:53 am
    “But the fiscal cliff is a reality. We have to deal with it. I’d rather have a carbon tax as part of dealing with the fiscal cliff — even though I don’t buy the BS from Michael Mann and the other purveyors of histrionics about the immediacy of huge harm from warming — as part of a deal to get us off the fiscal cliff, if it means we can bury cap and trade.”

    John,
    Like a person who lives in perpetual debt, the government is comfortable with current annual deficits of over $ 1 trillion. I say this because for the past 3 years we have had annual budget deficits of that amount. If they weren’t comfortable with it something would have changed. So how can you expect an additional flow of income into the federal government to be applied to a deficit they are so comfortable with? No, they will simply spend it and the annual deficits will remain the same or go up and the national debt will continue to rise until you will need a wheelbarrow of dollars to buy a beer. And it will be an import because all domestic companies will have been taxed out of business.

  29. So our manufacturing base becomes less competitive in the world market and China eats more of our lunch. Let’s make everything union also and make them pay part of that to treasury also. The state of Illinois has the highest debt to resident level of $ 7,200 per man, woman and child. California is second with $ 3,600 per man, woman and child. Any correlation yet? We need more government and less business.

  30. So – the truth is out – use a Carbon tax to raise revenue! – you poor folks in the USA will end up like the Aussies. No doubt we will be next……..(insert the worst expletives you can think of, and thats what should be appearing here to describe what I think of these bar stewards!)

  31. The budget deficit for the last 4 years has been over a trillion dollars. Now we will add full blown Obama Care, while the social security debt balloons and the percentage of the population on some form of the dole grows larger every year. Yet, this article indicates that the budget deficit will be around 300 billion dollars in 2012, more than a 70% reduction from this year!

    In a pigs eye!

    A carbon tax will just make it harder for everyone to make a living, especially the poor, who pay a greater percentage of their income on energy than the more well-to-do.

    A carbon tax is like a new ‘sin’ tax. Tobacco and alcohol are heavily taxed because there use is considered bad and, therefore, easy to the populace to agree on higher taxes. Now carbon has been sufficiently demonized that the administration may feel they can get a ‘sin’ tax applied to it. The difference, however, between carbon based energy and tobacco and alcohol is obvious: the latter are harmful to you health, while carbon based energy is the life blood of our economy and the only thing that keeps us from returning to a pre-industrial life style.

    If I where trying to covertly destroy the United States of America, I would be all for a carbon tax.

  32. markx says:
    “…
    Wonder how long it will take them to realize they have been played?”

    You obviously have not read Atlas Shrugged. They never do learn. They continue to blame the ‘greedy industrialist”

  33. In the real world, new taxes on businesses are not on the table, no matter what some bank in London thinks.

  34. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY !!!!!
    And yes, Obama can do this WITHOUT the House.
    It’s called the EPA and a mandate !!
    You dolts that reelected this fool, thanks a lot

  35. Remember, this is the man that claimed that the reason gas prices are averaging near $4.00 a gallon in the US is because our economy is so much stronger than it was when he took office.

  36. Well, as they say, you get what you voted for!! It’s a pity the US MSM didn;t bother to look at Australia and see the destructive effect the carbon tax is having there, with, as has been mentioned, price rises affecting every corner of the economy.

    If anyone thinks a carbon tax won;t have a knock-on effect, they are, well, there’s no adequate word for it, but it appears that it can now be applied to Obama.

  37. This is an international issue that needs to be put on the table one again, this time for a real national discussion and debate. That is part of a president’s job. The make-up of the Senate guarantees that the catastrophic elitist technocracy will have to present an exceptionally strong case in order to prevail. Obama has always said he will “follow the science”. Perhaps we’ll see. And perhaps he’ll end up with a reason to make changes in his top level science advisors.

  38. ericgrimsrud says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:51 am

    See how easy it is force people to pay taxes for a non-existent problem? Ignorant/misinformed people like ericgrimrud are why the U.S. will be bankrupt in just a few short years. Prepare yourselves now, folks. Look how the stock market is reacting to the “good news” or Obama’s reelection…

  39. Those of you who worry revenue from a carbon tax will be used for additional spending don’t seem to understand how bad the situation is. Debt servicing plus mandatory government spending (e.g. social security and medicare) already consumes all revenue and then some. The more visible functions of government including the military, FBI, EPA, TSA, NASA, etc. are classed as discretionary spending and those are the only ones that can be cut. You could defund them all, entirely, and still not balance the budget.

    A carbon tax is the least of your worries. The only way to balance the budget now is to flat-out confiscate personal wealth. Just be grateful that isn’t being proposed. Yet.

  40. The House of Representatives, which is part of Congress that controls the budget, is further entrenched by the opposite party of President Obama. This proposal is DOA.

  41. Get your family, get your money, get out! to where no one knows. But there are no western country’s to run to.

    HHHhhhmmm that sounds awefully like people are being backed into a corner.

    Not good!

  42. We have to reduce the deficit at some point. We borrowed the money and it needs to be paid back. And even the DEMs know that taxing the rich cannot do the job. There isn’t enough money there and they have a vague since that if you tax the rich too much most jobs and income go away. (The fall of the soviet block managed to get through some of their heads) Thus they know they will have to get the common folk to pay to cut the deficit.

    The classic way to get rid of a deficit is to inflate your way out of it. (It is essentially a tax except you are taking away purchasing power rather than actual dollars.) It is regressive as the rich live on earnings from investments which rise to match inflation. But inflation is seen as a negative by most people and allowing enough inflation to do the job is not politically viable.

    A carbon tax, can be sold on “Green” grounds and thus while it is just as regressive as inflation it is more politically viable. In many ways, since as a previous poster said a carbon tax will raise the cost of everything, a carbon tax is just inflation in another guise. Basically unlike just allowing inflation everyone can be told that, “Yes, you are a little poorer but you are there for a good cause.”

  43. They sure work fast at the funny hand shake club and follow the money, it’ll be all traded down good old wall street. Who do taxes always affect the most?

  44. No tax passed under Obama II will go toward reducing the deficit. It would only go toward more spending, undoubtedly on more “green energy” crony capitalism…

  45. (Romney had 2.5 million fewer votes than McCain. Apparently we’re not teaching work ethics anymore.)

    Unfortunately it was grumpy rigid Republicans and Libertarians who either sat on their hands or voted a protest vote, rather than vote for a candidate that “could win” against Obama rather than vote for a less than prefect candidate that they wanted. They either did not vote or threw away their vote by voting for someone who had no prayer of winning the election. In my county, a swap of only 944 votes (1888 total vote spread) would have put Romney in the lead.

    Short sighted conservative voters gave it away by not being pragmatic and taking what they could get and trying to make a statement.

    Add to that the willing fools manipulated by an in the bag press and you have the reason Obama will get another 4 years to screw things up even more.

    In one twisted sense, it might be good in the long run. One of the worst things that could have happened to the Republican party and conservative independents, libertarians and Democrats would have been for Romney to win and not be able to fix the mess the Progressives have built over the last few years. It could have been a set up to fail situation.

    At least now Obama and the Democratic party will own it (although they will blame any failures on the Republican controlled house as they try to apply the brakes to this run away train.)

    Larry

  46. Result of a carbon tax: Energy prices “necessarily skyrocket”, more manufacturing moves to lower cost energy markets (in countries with fewer pollution controls), more information data centers move to lower cost energy markets, more layoffs occur, more people on the dole, higher government expenditures on the dole and “energy support for freezing poor”, higher world pollution, higher government deficits by orders of magnitude. No there isn’t a bit of deficit reduction in this whole thing, in fact it looks like the death of a nation.

  47. Laffer curve comes to mind. And I’m definitely not an economist. Taxing energy raises production costs and all sorts of things come from it, such as recession. I’m living it.

  48. MrE,

    No, the carbon tax must affect everyone so that the daily habits of everyone is changed? ANd this must includes all people in all countries, of course. And this can be accomplished via import duties on all goods for which a carbon tax was not paid in the country of origin. Thus all countries will have a carbon tax so that the fees thereby collected will stay in their countries.

    But in order to help the more needy among us, the revenue collected via that C tax would be returned to the public on a capita basis via our IRS. Thus, citizens could decide whether they wanted to spend their portion of the fee on the then more expensive gas and oil or pocket that money and seek other more efficient ways of living by which their carbon footprint would be reduced.

    All of this is called the Carbon Fee and 100% Dividend plan – look it up.

  49. Somebody says Obama MAY……. doesn’t hold water until it spews from Obama’s mouth.
    When it does, we can all get overly excited. (It’s a ridiculous idea that only benefits the people in power who make a little every time the money changes hands.. which is why I’m fully expecting it)

  50. @ ericgrimsrud
    Who’s Andrew Watts?

    If you can’t even get that one fact right, why are you so confident in your assessment?

    BTW: @ $20 bucks a ton CO2, every person in the USA would owe about $6.67 per year just for exhalling given about 0.037 g of CO2 per exhale, 15 breaths per minute, and 311,591,917 people that comes to about $2,077,000,000 per year. (If applied to individuals.)

    aBTW: DHMO kills more people from over-exposure than any other chemical, do you support banning it?

  51. Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:38 am

    “Short sighted conservative voters gave it away by not being pragmatic and taking what they could get and trying to make a statement.”

    “In one twisted sense, it might be good in the long run.”

    It has the chance of being good… romeny was obama lite… as mccain was obama lite.

    The only people being short sighted are the people that believe romney would have even if he could have changed the government for the better. He wouldn’t be able too nor would he want to. Until the republicans run at the very least centrist people instead of leftwing/center leftwing people most of the tea party people on other will sit out.

    The reality of when dealing with any voting process is anyone who votes accepts the results… if you voted for romney then you MUST support obama and everything he does. Thats democracy and why the government has a huge vested interest in getting people to vote. If only 30% of the country voted then the government whoever was elected would at best has 30% of the public. If they can get 70% to vote even if its 36/34% then they can use the standard propaganda statement of “we must support the process and outcome and blah blah blah”.

    Obama is going to get us into communism as fast as he can now that his leash is off. Better to jump off the cliff when your well feed and armed… then to do it after decades of slowly starving and being disarmed. Big picture end result is either we hit rock bottom… and climb out. Or we hit rock bottom and stay there.

    No matter whats happens though we will never recover until we hit the bottom and people are willing to take a real hard look at themselves and reality… and the drug induced stupid that is far to much of the US voter has no interest in reality.

  52. The tax bill has to originate in the House, which retained its Republican majority (reduced by 10 members.) In the coal-using and coal-producing states that went for Obama, I doubt that the representatives will help to pass a tax that raises their electricity rates or reduces their income from mining coal.

    I expect Obama to have about as much clout on this issue, which he avoided throughout the campaign, as Bush II had on Social Security reform in his second term. You don’t have political power in a Democracy to achieve a goal that you avoided mentioning in order to get elected. Doubly so if your opponents, Republican House member in this case, successfully campaigned in opposition.

  53. ericgrimsrud says:
    ‘This, of course, explains why the Fossil Fuel industries deny the science behind AGW.’

    No it absolutely doesn’t. Instead, it defies rational and scientific thought, embodying a fanatical political agenda that leads no where except the further impoverishment of those least able to cope.

  54. ShrNfr says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:38 am

    The availability of cheap energy is one of the primary movers of any economy. Make it expensive and the economy will not move, it is really about all that simple. Perhaps it is time to get busy with the thorium reactors.
    _______________________________
    AMEN to that!

    I am about to go down and congratulate my NC state house rep and put that bug in his ear. He is pro-fracking. NC is slated to close down four coal plants. We have twelve. EPA: “North Carolina is a leader in the energy-intensive chemical manufacturing industry…. North Carolina’s electricity production is high. Coal-fired power plants typically account for about three-fifths of the State’s electricity generation, and nuclear power typically accounts for about one-third. …In August 2007, North Carolina adopted a renewable energy and energy efficiency portfolio standard requiring electric utilities to meet 12.5 percent of retail electricity demand through renewable energy or energy efficiency measures by 2021. Electric membership corporations and municipalities that sell electric power within the State must meet a 10-percent standard by 2018.”

    In looking into all that I found this “ACTION ALERT” from those who want to close down all non’green’ power.

    National hearings on long-term nuclear waste storage at commercial nuclear power reactors
    There will be a total of four hearings, one in person and on the Internet and three via Internet beginning on November 14, 2012.

    The NRC is rushing the process: The environmental impact statement for long-term nuclear waste storage at reactors is now underway. NRC must resolve many technical issues including waste integrity, vulnerability, deterioration and accidents. Also, the damaged nuclear waste stored at Fukushima is still being evaluated. The waste confidence EIS should take seven years. Yet the NRC has set a deadline of September 2014 to finalize the new rule

    http://www.bredl.org/action.htm

    GAG, there goes all our industry and jobs. Next comes the USDA/FDA/NC DACS gunning for the farmers. Actually that is already happening with sting operations of “cute little latino girls” (my neighbors words) of Muslims trying to get farmers to slaughter purchased animals on their land per request of purchaser. (I got tagged by the ‘Muslim’) Luckily the word has spread around the farming community beause the fines are really stiff. (No _Jim, I am not a ‘conspiracy nut’ Illegal slaughterhouses growing concern in NC: Wake County farm is under investigation – farmers slaughtering livestock and selling meat without a license… inspectors made an undercover buy… )

  55. erigrimsrud nicely exemplifies the problem.

    At: ericgrimsrud says November 7, 2012 at 8:51 am
    He pontificates about the ignorance of the masses regarding science. He has repeatedly jumped into threads on this site to comment on the science, and has wound up looking like a fool more often than not. Yet his belief that “his” science is right and anyone who disagrees is just stupid remains.

    At: ericgrimsrud says November 7, 2012 at 9:40 am
    He continues on to comment on issues of economics, and demonstrates that he understands even less about both economics and the practicality of the international carbon tax regime he proposes than he does about science.

    This is the problem. I’ve changed my mind on certain aspects of agw science multiple times. When confronted with facts that don’t match my belief system, I question my belief system. Facts change nothing for ericgrumsrud, and the prevailing fact of the matter is that there are far more people on both sides of the debate that are committed to a given belief system (as is grimsrud) than there are those who, like me, evaluate and re-evaluate on a constant basis. Mo matter how many times grimsrud has been shown that his opinions on various aspects of science are wrong, sometimes comically and tragically wrong, his opinion on the science and what to do about it hasn’t wavered.

    As an idealistic young man, I was of the belief that unlike religion, scientists formulated their opinions on facts and logic alone. As an older, wiser, more experienced observer of the human condition…. I have changed my belief system on that matter. I’d be happy to change it back, but ericgrimsrud continues to supply ample evidence that my current view is the correct one.

  56. History shows that the US government should not look at carbon taxes as a source of revenue.
    European governments implemented carbon taxes (Actually gas tax) decades ago. The populations changed over to smaller, more fuel efficient cars, more efficient ways of warming their homes, heating their water, etc. The result is Europeans have become more environmentally friendly (fuel efficient). But their governments have not generated much in the way of extra tax revenue.

  57. the gov’t players know this from years of empirical testing and validated experience:
    you are stupid, you can be lied to with impunity, you will continue to pay and continue to vote because you are the abused half of a codependent relationship who lacks courage and can’t say ‘no’. you were made to be abused.
    yet you will tell yourself that things will change and carry on doing the same that got this result every single time you tried it. why learn from experience when you can wallow in the misery that makes your life meaningful?
    john galt already did his thing. he just didn’t bother telling the cringing, huddled mass of weaklings.

    ball’s in your court. among you there may be a pair. the wise money is against it.
    suffer. you have earned it.

  58. Tax bills have to originate in the house… but Obama may well use executive privilege (as he already has) to direct the EPA to levy massive fines that are effectively a tax. Don’t be surprised if this is the route that is taken. He has already demonstrated by four years of folly to have no respect for the channels of proper authority or the checks and balances instituted under the Constitution.

  59. ericgrimsrud says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:40 am
    “But in order to help the more needy among us, the revenue collected via that C tax would be returned to the public on a capita basis via our IRS. Thus, citizens could decide whether they wanted to spend their portion of the fee on the then more expensive gas and oil or pocket that money and seek other more efficient ways of living by which their carbon footprint would be reduced. All of this is called the Carbon Fee and 100% Dividend plan – look it up.”

    Their portion of the fee?????? Why should they, ” the citizens”, even get a portion? It is not their money. Businesses are in the business of making profit, for the owners and other investors. That is the only reason for a business. If you think it is any other reason you probably never owned or invested in a business. The side benefit from that motivation is jobs, healthcare and other benefits that the business sees as a means to attract good, productive people in order to make more profit. Profitable businesses are good for everyone! Every penny the government takes away from a business damages the business and the economy.

  60. “A carbon tax starting at $20 a ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021″

    yes, I suppose it COULD raise that much. It also COULD raise basically nothing and drive what’s left of the American manufacturing sector elsewhere.

    but politicians generally think they can tax and regulate without those being taxed and regulated changing their behavior to avoid those taxes. It’s kind of insane to think this fragile economy could survive energy prices increasing.

  61. Rather than using hard science to demolish the policy perspectives of ideological nut jobs, Rs relied upon familiar lines of reasoning that had long since had their foundations torn away by “what can I get for free? tides.”
    At root, I believe those packaging the aired message did so because they were satisfied by the proportion of benefits allotted to them else they would have spared no effort to spotlight the most efficacious and quick opponent defining messenger….Bill Clinton’s son

  62. I call B*llsh*t!
    Obama is willing to print trillions of dollars (on recycled paper, no doubt) to fund his misbegotten ideas about the energy industry – (food-to-ethanol, biodiesel, wind, solar, tidal power, all-electric cars) – so why does he suddenly need to draw huge amounts of cash away from small businesses and taxpayers? At the Federal level it is NEVER about the money – it’s always about the power and control over people and what they do.

  63. Cam_S says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:11 am

    To socialists taxes aren’t just about making money but forcing people to do thing that they believe are correct. European “leaders” didn’t like it that the europeons could have nice stuff like the leaders and thus “adjusted” the tax base so people would be forced to buy smaller cars.

  64. Funny thing is, China is getting it all right, without even thinking about a carbon tax.:

    Building national transport infrastructure, highways, bridges, high speed trains, dozens of airports. Opening a new coal fired power plant every few weeks to replace all the millions of little old dirty coal furnaces polluting the country. Building massive hydro projects. Setting up nuclear power plants. Planting trees, rapidly modernizing their agriculture.

    Funny thing is all of this will more efficiently use energy (minimizing CO2 and probably more importantly other outputs) for great gains in efficiency. And helping the economy at the same time.

  65. There is no reason in the world that any new money brought into the US Treasury won’t be wasted faster than it can be brought in. Neither party has given me any confidence in this, but at the least the Tea-Party influenced Republicans seem to be making an effort — for now, at least.

    Besides, this proposal is completely wrong if the objective is to increase tax revenues. The way to increase tax revenues is the grow the economy. Historic data shows that federal revenues hover around 18% of the GDP, no matter what the tax rate. Raise the marginal tax rate to 70%? Still only going to bring in about 18% of the GDP. This proposal won’t work any differently than any other tax in that regards.

    The way to increase revenues is to grow the GDP. Grow jobs, grow incomes, increase investment opportunities. Grow the economy and tax revenues will increase. A new tax, or raising rates on existing taxes reduces growth, (average income), employment and investment. This has been shown time and time again, in this country and in others.

    A carbon tax will result in more outsourcing and more layoffs. Revenues will stagnate and sure-as-shooting, somebody will propose more big government programs to subsidize favored businesses, industry and organized labor jobs. Everybody else will foot the bill and the deficit will just keep growing.

    Reducing the deficit is easy. Grow government spending slower than the tax revenues grow. Reduce tax rates, reform the tax code, encourage investment and remove onerous regulations and the economy will grow faster and revenues will grow faster. Reform entitlements and work to actually reduce the size and scope of government and the deficit could be gone in a few years.

  66. I was unaware that a President can levy a tax. What tremendous changes our nation is undergoing.
    Soon perhaps we can do away with the House, and then the Senate. That will certainly increase the level of change, if not hope.
    A carbon tax will not control the weather, will not go towards more energy efficiency except by coincidence, but will give the Chicago thugocracy a nice new way to siphon off money into even larger Solyandra-pal scams.

  67. Frank K. says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:30 am

    ericgrimsrud says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:51 am

    See how easy it is force people to pay taxes for a non-existent problem? Ignorant/misinformed people like ericgrimrud are why the U.S. will be bankrupt in just a few short years. Prepare yourselves now, folks. Look how the stock market is reacting to the “good news” or Obama’s reelection…
    _______________________________________
    If I could figure out where to move to I would sell out my home and business ASAP retire and let Obamaland support me.

    Does anyone know where Galt Gulch is?

  68. ericgrimsrud;
    No, the carbon tax must affect everyone so that the daily habits of everyone is changed? ANd this must includes all people in all countries, of course. And this can be accomplished via import duties on all goods for which a carbon tax was not paid in the country of origin. Thus all countries will have a carbon tax so that the fees thereby collected will stay in their countries.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Can you tell us how this will actually work eric? How will you get every importing country in the world to agree to this? Did it occur to you that by not doing this, many countries would gain a competitive advantage on the goods they export by not taxing the imported commodities that are consumed by their export industries?

    Can you explain how importing countries will ensure that exporting countries are reporting accurately? Do you really think that countries like China, Bangladesh and so many others won’t report that they are collecting the carbon taxes to they won’t suffer duties when they actually aren’t? Do you suppose that in corrupt countries (of which there are quite a few on this planet) there won’t be deals made where governments place a carbon tax on manufacturing, but refund it to the factory owners behind the scenes disguised as something else entirely?

    What will you do to control this? Will you send inspectors and accountants to every exporting country to examine that governments accounting books (like they’d let you, lol) and that of the exporting companies themselves to ensure that they are playing fairly? Or perhaps you are of the belief that you could set up something via the United Nations to control this? Perhaps the “Oil for Food” program would serve as a good model?

    I’d like to know also how you would differentiate between manufacturers with completely different technology. For example, if two exporters both make shoes, but one does it with mechanization and the other with child labour, will you know which is which when they arrive at the border? Will you send inspectors to over seas plants in other countries to ensure that they are really using child labour in order to avoid carbon taxes? Will you count promoting child labour and slave labour in third world countries as a victory of some sort?

    Do you even begin to understand the level of corruption that you would be promoting by putting such a regime in place? Do you understand that the unintended consequences would be to promote child labour and slave labour wages over mechanization? Do you have any idea what the consequences for food prices would be world wide and that the most deleterious effects would be on the world’s poor and disenfranchised?

    You live in a dreamworld of your own devise ericgrimsrud. What is sad is that not one word that I have said in this comment will make it through that wall of ignorance you surround yourself with and call science.

  69. A carbon tax will be effective in cutting the deficit for exactly the same reason that it will be ineffective in cutting carbon levels – energy consumption is for consumers inelastic with respect to price. There is a test of this. Has the tripling of oil prices in recent years reduced the quantity of gasoline consumed by a significant amount? To extent that it has reduced consumption, has the US consumption fallen by a significantly greater amount than in Europe? The reason I ask this is that Europe has far higher taxes on gasoline compared with the US, so the US has seen a much higher percentage increase in the pump price than in Europe. As a result, the demand effect should be larger.

    There is one area where a carbon tax will be effective in reducing US emissions. That is in the gas-consuming parts of the chemical sector. We know that because thousands of jobs have been created in the US due to shale gas halving prices, giving a distinct cost advantage. Remove the cost advantage, and the factories locate elsewhere.

  70. ericgrimsrud: … the revenue collected via that C tax would be returned to the public on a capita basis via our IRS.

    Hmm…. I thought you were going to use that revenue to halve the national deficit. You can argue it round or you can argue it flat, but you can’t very well argue it round and flat at the same time.

  71. lurker, passing through laughing says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:35 am

    “I was unaware that a President can levy a tax.”

    I would wager he will most likely have the EPA require permits and other things that cost money in order to do business. This would be the easiest and fastest why to bypass congress. The GOP of course will have turn coats in the house who will help get this stuff through at a later time making the then issued orders seem at least on the surface legit though red tape.

    Anyone who doesn’t think obama can run wild and pretty much do whatever he wants has been watching him for the last 4 years. He shut down oil drilling in the judge even after a judge ruled against him(twice I think).

  72. I think I found Galt Gulch, it is a private city in Honduras.

    Honduran President Porfirio Lobo Sosa has said.

    The laws in the city will be separate from those in the rest of Honduras. Strong said that the default law that will be enforced in the city will actually be based on Texas state law, which has relatively few regulations.

    “It will be Texas law with more freedom of contract. Texas scores well on state economic freedom rankings,” he explained.

    “Texas law is also very familiar to American business people, and it is very familiar to Hondurans, because a lot of Hondurans have gone there or have family there.”

    Investors who think the city will do well will also be able to buy land there.
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/11/private-city-in-honduras-will-have-minimal-taxes-government/ (Yeah it is Fox News)

    Honduras News – Honduras Approves Private Cities Project

    Honduran Private City Plan Shot Down by Its Supreme Court Oct. 4, 2012 11:38 am Now goes before the full court so we will have to wait…

  73. Halve the deficit? LOL NO WAY

    Barry has already spent this new revenue…..
    He’ll le us know what on later.

    OWN your economy, Obamacrats.

  74. For erigrimsrud;
    A lesson in unintended consequences.

    Many years ago, the USA imposed import duties on trucks. At the time, there were taxes on fuel that trucks were exempt from. What happened as a consequence of these two tax regimes was an interesting lesson in what happens when artificial taxes are imposed in order to change the behaviour of manufacturers and consumers.

    One of the Japanese auto manufacturers produced at the time a very small truck, a 1/4 ton as it was commonly called. They approached the US government with the argument that this wasn’t a “truck” per se, but more like a small commuter vehicle with a tiny cargo capacity. After much wrangling, the bits and pieces of the American government that over saw imports agreed, classified the vehicle as a car, not a truck, and so the Japanese auto company was able to bring hundreds of thousands of them in exempt from the truck import duty.

    Once inside the country though, having been classed as “cars”, these vehicles were now subject to fuel taxes that trucks were exempt from. The auto company went to the bits and pieces of the US government that controlled this taxation, and demanded to know why their vehicles were subject to a fuel levy on cars when any darn fool could look at the things and see clearly that they were trucks. They won that argument too, gaining a competitive advantage over domestic producers and circumventing the change in behaviour that taxation of fuel was supposed to drive.

    And that’s the behaviour of a car company that takes pride in their image world wide as an ethical company, that is from Japan, one of the closest allies that the USA has. Do you think ericgrimsrud, that the likes of Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe or Putin or Assad or…. a very long list… would be content to just go along with your carbon tax out of the goodness of their hearts?

  75. A carbon tax – and just as Americans were beginning to celebrate the “homecoming” of American companies due to the cheapness of shale gas. You Yanks have been showing up us Europeans with your cheap energy, but don’t worry. It will soon become as expensive as ours, and the Greens will be the ones celebrating – celebrating the outsourcing of American industry once again.

    Seems like you CAN have too much of a good thing.

  76. davidmhoffer says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:11 am

    erigrimsrud nicely exemplifies the problem.

    At: ericgrimsrud says November 7, 2012 at 8:51 am
    He pontificates about the ignorance of the masses regarding science. He has repeatedly jumped into threads on this site to comment on the science, and has wound up looking like a fool more often than not. Yet his belief that “his” science is right and anyone who disagrees is just stupid remains….
    _________________________
    He was Professor of Chemistry at Montana State University (He mentioned this when he first showed up at WUWT) and in MHO reflects the typical occupant of the Regulating Class that Dr David Evans talks about. That is “How the regulating class is using bogus claims about climate change to entrench and extend their economic privileges and political control.”

    When the eaters of tax funds start to equal or exceeding in number the creators of wealth, a country is in deep doo-doo. That is where many Western countries are now when you add up all the various types with their hands in the pot. From Highbrow Professors, politicians and their croniesto the street hooker on welfare and food stamps they have one thing in common, a desire to skim as much moola as possible from other peoples pockets. Personally after several years of research prompted by WUWT I have more respect for the street hooker.

  77. Higher energy costs for a carbon tax to spend on scams that do not significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions and increase the cost of energy.

    It appears the President is hoping to achieve double digit unemployment. Doubling the price of energy will send the last manufacturing jobs overseas. High cost of energy will mean less money for Americans to spend in America. (Same comment of course applies to EU, Australia, and so on.)

  78. Nope, won’t happen. This is a classic case of our bizarre Mutual Delusion Society. Rs always think a D president is going to run wild in his second term and declare himself Dictator For Life. Ds always think a R president is going to run wild in his second term and declare himself Dictator For Life.

    Completely outside of reality. Never happens.

    What does happen: Presidents slack off in their second term. They feel like the hard work is done, and now it’s time to enjoy the perks of office.

  79. Guess we will have to just get over it. Obama won and he will rail against the Republican Congress (and many Dems) who will resist the imposition of that tax. However, if that IPCC report scares enough nitwits out there, with the media’s help, the Senate and Congress will go along. Sigh.

  80. So, on top of all the tax increases from the fiscal cliff and Obamacare, we’re proposing adding a carbon tax, too? Why does he stop there? Let’s just announce that all paychecks will now be passed through the IRS who will then send you back your monthly EBT which will be strictly rationed.

  81. To those piously stating that this additional carbon tax would “reduce the deficit”, I have just two words to say:

    DREAM ON!

    Congress has proven again and again that they can’t be trusted with money. A couple of economists
    did a study, in 2009, which showed that for the entire period, 1945-2009, every dollar of Federal tax increase resulted in $1.17 of additional spending.

    Think about that. For sixty-five years, through Congresses & Presidents of both parties, every time a
    tax increase went through, it resulted in 117% more spending.

    And for those who claim that a Republican House will not buckle on this: it doesn’t matter. Obama has already indicated (see this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/politics/shift-on-executive-powers-let-obama-bypass-congress.html?pagewanted=all) a willingness to use Executive Orders to bypass Congress in the face of what he calls Congressional obstructionism.

  82. Yeah. That, and Obamacare, are really going to get the economy going again. Can’t wait to see what happens.

  83. We will see tax increases, thanks to the inability to impose IQ tests for voter eligibility determinations. I prefer they do not call it a carbon tax, as that would legitimize it in the minds of some of the wackos.

  84. Proof, if any, that voting has become a non-democratic farce, an exercise in nothing more than choosing which big brother poster goes on the wall.

    The real decisions have long since been made, far away from the man on the street, by white collar criminals heading up banks & financial institutions.

  85. So, who is doing the “considering” here? Is it Barack Obama, or is it HSBC?

    I read the post as saying that HSBC is considering or perhaps suggesting that Obama should levy a carbon tax.

    Since I’m feeling a bit lazy today, may I impose on you nice folks to answer my original question? Thanks.

  86. I’m really confused. I’ve read the article a couple of times now, and I don’t understand what other people have been reading. This is an article that states that a LONDON-based analyst from HSBC appears to be speculating on what a carbon tax would do if it were introduced in the USA.

    Why do so many people think that this foreign analyst has an inside track on what the Obama Administration is planning on doing?

    A carbon tax is certainly a possibility, but, as many people have already pointed out, it’s not a probability because the GOP has retained control of the House.

    As an aside (because it’s actually irrelevant to this discussion since a carbon tax is unlikely to make an appearance in America), the carbon tax in Australia appears to have had minimal impact on the economy of that country so far, despite the doom predictions that preceded it. Of course, it’ll also have minimal impact on CO2 levels, but we all knew that before it was introduced.

  87. Why do you think “HSBC Holdings” has a clue what Obama plans to do? This is pure speculation. It is also ridiculous. The president doesn’t have the power to tax. The problem of dealing with the deficit is one that the legislature must solve.

    The House is Republican dominated and the Senate is completely fillibusterable. No tax can be imposed if Republicans block it. Republicans have absolutely no idea how to deal with the debt. You have no idea how unhappy that makes me.

  88. markx says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:30 am
    Funny thing is, China is getting it all right, without even thinking about a carbon tax.:

    Building national transport infrastructure, highways, bridges, high speed trains, dozens of airports. Opening a new coal fired power plant every few weeks to replace all the millions of little old dirty coal furnaces polluting the country. Building massive hydro projects. Setting up nuclear power plants. Planting trees, rapidly modernizing their agriculture.

    Funny thing is all of this will more efficiently use energy (minimizing CO2 and probably more importantly other outputs) for great gains in efficiency. And helping the economy at the same time.

    The sad thing is few people know that China’s infrastructure spending has exhausted it’s temporary stimulus effect, the projects are rife with corruption and cronyism and the high-speed rail is plagued with safety issues. Can you say Potemkin Village?

    China is a big polluter and their emissions are higher than the USA’s. They are now the #1 carbon emitter (not carbon polluter — no such thing exists). Their new coal plants emit far more than ours.

    We do need more energy generation capability. We need more coal, more natural gas and more nuclear. We need to quit the word games of claiming every government expense is an investment, discard Keynesian, neo-Fascist and neo-Marxist economics and get the free market economy rolling again. Stop the central planning lunacy, acknowledge “shovel ready” is a lie in our current regulatory environment and encourage private investment in energy.

    BTW: The public sector does have a role in transportation, however, that’s one if it’s actual responsibilities. We don’t need high-speed rail that takes people to places they don’t want to go. Do the central planners know where we will want to go decades from now? What will they do when traffic patterns and travel patterns change?

  89. And in a related story— today, in a breakthrough procedure, a badly injured man received a blood transfusion from his own leg.

  90. Terror is the last remaining weapon in their arsenal. Reason and Science have fallen from their grasp. It is the costs of Going Green which really scares the wits out of everyone nowadays.

  91. Sen. Kerry has already sneaked Cap and Trade into the Law of the Sea Treaty that only needs to be passed by the Senate.

    We’re screwed one way or the other.

  92. How can this carbon tax halve the deficit? Obama doubled it by trillions in his first 4 years and HSBC has now confirmed, without wanting to say it, that Obama has no way out of trouble and increasing the 16 trillion to 24 trillion by 2016. HSBC says that this carbon tax will raise a bit more than 100 billion by 2021. But we are talking of a current deficit of 16 trillion which is increasing at a rate of 2 trillion EVERY YEAR,

    This means one thing: Either it is an excuse to deliberately raise the price of energy (which will make industry fly to China more and more), or its the proverbial God making one go mad before he is completely destroyed, or both.

    Can’t HSBC do math?

  93. The carbon tax is working wonderfully over here in Oz ….industry costs are rising, jobs are being lost, welfare needs are increasing, consumer spending is down………the govt has more money to send shoring up its electorate, income redistribution is full steam ahead ….it’s all go, go, go down here!

  94. HSBC were caught laundering drug money world wide. google it, or better still:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/05/us-hsbc-earnings-idUSBRE8A400920121105

    and says:

    (Reuters) – A U.S. fine for violating federal anti-money laundering laws could cost HSBC Holdings significantly more than $1.5 billion and is likely to lead to criminal charges as well, Europe’s biggest bank said on Monday.

    HSBC said the U.S. investigation had damaged the bank’s reputation and forced it to set aside a further $800 million to cover a potential fine for breaches in anti-money laundering controls in Mexico and other violations. The provision was on top of $700 million it put aside in July

  95. Obama does not owe anything politicallty to the climate change community now.

    In fact, Climate Change is a dead-end issue for any politician for the time-being.

    Obama could barely say the words in the election in case it cost him 0.5 percentage points in the vote, let alone make any commitments to it. (The climate changers voted for him but they were not voting for Romney anyway so he did not get one single more vote than he would have otherwise by being a potential, though silient, climate change supporter).

    So, Obama does not have to do anything for climate change unless he personally wants to do something.

  96. The Republican Congress will never pass such a bill. The only way Obama can regulate CO2 is through the EPA.

  97. Juraj V. says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:56 am

    “First, you bribe voters with public money. Then, you bankrupt the country. Then, you increase taxes for working class to pay the debt, so you can continue to bribe voters by other people’s money.
    Sounds like positive feedback.”

    And here I thought that it was a forcing.

  98. Lame duck president. Republican House can block him and if in two years if the Senate turns Republican as well, Obamao will really be done.

  99. A carbon tax, is nothing more than a morphing of the broken window fallacy.

    Yes it will cut CO2 emissions, simply by cutting economic activity, which always involves an expenditure of energy in some form or other.

  100. An Opinion says:
    November 7, 2012 at 2:59 pm
    “The Republican Congress will never pass such a bill. The only way Obama can regulate CO2 is through the EPA.”

    That could never happen now could it….oh wait….

  101. “””””…..An Opinion says:

    November 7, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    The Republican Congress will never pass such a bill. The only way Obama can regulate CO2 is through the EPA……”””””

    I don’t think you grasp the concept of a “lame duck” politician.

    Obama has nothing now standing between him and his concept of dictatorship. He has no precedent for compromise. Now he doesn’t need to.

    Perhaps you didn’t catch his statement this morning that he planned to sit down with Mitt Romney.

    Why the hell, would any “winning” politician sit down withh is squished foe ?

    Well Obama’s problem is that Mitt Romney is the person, who knows the answer to the question; how do I go about fixing this economic mess ?

    Romney should exit stage left, and leave Obama swinging from his own yard arm.

    As for “working with the leaders of both parties.” Harry Reid isn’t going to sit down with anyone; but Boehner will cave just like the fickle Republican RINOS always do.

    Boehner should not again be the Speaker. Give that job to Ryan, who may have some ideas. I would tell the President, that he can come and talk to the house leaders, as soon as Harry Reid comes up with the Senate’s version of a budget; well at least the 2008-2009 budget, which so far isn’t finished.

  102. “””””……Ian H says:

    November 7, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Why do you think “HSBC Holdings” has a clue what Obama plans to do? This is pure speculation. It is also ridiculous. The president doesn’t have the power to tax……””””””

    Well neither does the Congress; well other than to “pay the National debt and provide for the common defense and general welfare of THE UNITED STATES “.
    (Article 1 . section 8, clause 1)

    But the Congress DOES have the power to SPEND; which simply transfers the bill onto the National debt, and then they do have the power to lay taxes to pay that.

    Why else do you think they love deficit spending ?

  103. So does anyone know just where Lady Michelle, is planning to fly her fleet of aircraft off to this weekend. Seems like it is about time for her to revisist hubby Barry’s brother there in his Kenyan lean to.

    Just contemplate what her travel itinerary is going to develop into. And you thought Hilary Clinton, understood White House Travel planning.

  104. Frank K. says:

    “See how easy it is force people to pay taxes for a non-existent problem? Ignorant/misinformed people like ericgrimrud are why the U.S. will be bankrupt in just a few short years.”

    Grimsrud has no understanding of the Broken Window Fallacy.

  105. William says: @ November 7, 2012 at 11:23 am

    ….It appears the President is hoping to achieve double digit unemployment….
    ___________________________________
    He already has (~ 23%) and the puppet media has allowed him to get away with his massive lies.

    John Williams’ SHADOW GOVERNMENT STATISTICS
    Alternate Unemployment Charts

    The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
    The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment….

    See Graph at website. The actual Unemployment rate has been hovering around 23% with a slight tic up since 2009. The government stats have shown a falling rate as long-term discouraged workers fall off the radar.

    Note: It was necessary to defined out of official existence long-term discouraged workers because it was known that signing the WTO and bring China in would wipe out many US jobs permanently. Redefining the statistic allowed government to hide the actual state of affairs while international corporations consolidated their position and packed up US factories to shipped them out of the country – literally. We are now dependent on those cheap imports because no one in the USA manufactures the item any more and all the machinery to do so is GONE. (I know one of the guys whose business did the packing and shipping of those factories.)

    The China toll
    …Between 2001 and 2011, the trade deficit with China eliminated or displaced more than 2.7 million U.S. jobs, over 2.1 million of which (76.9 percent) were in manufacturing. These lost manufacturing jobs account for more than half of all U.S. manufacturing jobs lost or displaced between 2001 and 2011….

    But the jobs impact of the China trade deficit is not restricted to job loss and displacement. Competition with low-wage workers from less-developed countries such as China has driven down wages for workers in U.S. manufacturing and reduced the wages and bargaining power of similar, non-college-educated workers throughout the economy. The affected population includes essentially all workers with less than a four-year college degree—roughly 70 percent of the workforce, or about 100 million workers (U.S. Census Bureau 2012b).

    Put another way, for a typical full-time median-wage earner, earnings losses due to globalization totaled approximately $1,400 per year as of 2006…

    The last US census showed the number of manufacturing jobs when from 24% of the population in 1970 to less than 9% after Obama took office. The only wealth creation is from mining, agriculture (including forestry) and manufacturing. All the rest is just moving around that created wealth. The GNP does not reflect true wealth creation.

  106. Don’t say I didn’t warn you…

    Really, this is a feint. Waxman-Markey (cap & trade) nearly passed once, and there is probably renewed interest in this approach since the electorate has “seen the light” thanks to the past summer’s drought, Hurricane Sandy etc.

    Plus, Romney’s buddies on Wall Street clean up big-time with new products to trade. The bundled-mortgage derivative thing didn’t work out too well in the end….

    So, with new Democratic strength in the House and Senate and a need to raise cash, I think that a re-jiggered Waxman-Markey type of bill is the real aim.

  107. Here, in Australia, our ‘conservative’ Opposition (like many commentators on this thread) is objecting to the Carbon Tax on its economic merits — or lack thereof. If a Carbon Tax is needed to save the planet we will just have to cop the economic consequences.

    There are only two reasons for legitimately opposing a measure which is going to save us all from otherwise certain destruction: 1. It won’t work (i.e. we’re doomed anyway); 2. Its scientific basis is rubbish. Arguing the economic merits is playing the game on your opponents’ turf. It implies that you have conceded the points I just mentioned and are merely arguing about correct implementation. At this point you are playing to lose! You need to stick to the science.

    One final point: I seem to recall that when Mr Obama first ran for the as Presidency, he was supposedly going to ban (or seriously restrict) firearms ownership. The founder of Cooper Firearms (I hope I have the company name correct.) was forced out of his company because he was discovered to have donated to the Obama campaign. If there was a titanic struggle over this issue in Mr Obama’s early Presidency I must have been asleep.

    P.S. I’m not sure that I would necessarily regard “HSBC Holdings Plc” as an authoritative source for inside information on the U.S. President’s domestic policy. Maybe we could wait for a bit and see what the President actually does.

  108. The biggest danger to the world economy now is inflation such as was seen in the 1970s. One good way to address this is to remove the need for governments for deficit financing. this will also have the beneficial effect of withdrawing the government from the debt market thus freeing up more capital for investment in business and the jobs that would go with that.

    A consumption tax (of which a carbon tax is one example) is a way to accomplish this. It could put the government on a sound financial basis and remove the dislocations caused by the continual massive deficits.

    Canada did this with a version of a value added tax in the early 1990s and now it economy is the envy of the western world. A consumption tax to correct the fiscal imbalance is a sound conservative approach to the current problems. This has to be considered seriously and knee jerk responses and wishful thinking are to be avoided. The current climate policy fiasco has amply demonstrated that. Whether based on carbon or not, a consumption tax could benefit the economy and make everyone richer.

  109. I heard a large flushing sound from south of the Canadian border yesterday. Any idea what that was?

  110. @Tom Gray,

    Tax increases of any kind by themselves will not elminated US defict spending. History shows that congress will spend between $1.50 and $2.00 for every additional $1.00 in tax revinue. This increases defict spending.

    The debt is a spending problem not a revenue problem.

    Once congress demonstrates a capability of making real spending cuts then we can talk about revenues.

  111. G P Hanner says:
    November 7, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Yeah. That, and Obamacare, are really going to get the economy going again. Can’t wait to see what happens.
    _______________________________
    That is real easy to figure out.
    1. Any business big enough will have more incentive to leave the country before February 2014.

    2. Smaller businesses who were thinking of expanding will not.

    3. Any one in business in his right mind will make ALL his workers part time contract workers, AND make sure that he employs fewer than twenty-five full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) whose average salary is below $50,000 if they plan on paying a portion of their worker’s insurance or less that 50 FTEs if they decide not to provide insurance. (Sure puts a cap on salaries and hiring doesn’t it) See: http://www.accountingweb.com/article/cpas-examine-impact-health-care-reform/219788

    4. If you are self employed and close to retirement age you might just decide to get the heck out of business entirely instead of dealing with all the new rules and regulations.

    The trend of going to part time employees has been the trend for the last twenty years or so and it will only get worse. SEE: http://smallbiztrends.com/2012/07/reason-small-businesses-arent-hiring.html

    To get a true picture of the US economy just take a look at the top US employers.

    The largest American employer is, by far, the United States federal government with over four million employees worldwide. Wal-Mart, the retailing giant follows with 1.8 million employees. These 5.8 million employees are more than the total employees at the remaining top ten publicly-held American employers….

    Top 10 Public American Employers
    Rank …. Company……….. Type of Business ………….Employees
    1 ……… Wal-Mart ………………… Retail ………………. 1,800,000
    2 ……. Kelly Services ……….. Temporary Help …….. 750,000
    3 …….. McDonald’s ……………. Fast Food …………….. 465,000
    4 ……. UPS ………………… Express Delivery …….. 428,000
    5 ……. IBM ……………………… Computer Hardware … 355,766
    6 ……. Home Depot ………….. Home Retail …………… 345,000
    7 ……. Target ………………….. Retail ……………………. 338,000
    8 ……. Citigroup ………………. Banking ………………… 337,000
    9 ……. General Electric …….. Leasing & Finance ….. 319,000
    10 …… AT&T ………….. Staffing/Telephone Service .. 302,770

    http://jobs.lovetoknow.com/Largest_American_Employers

    (chart modified to make it fit)

    Really inspires confidence in the US economy of sales clerks and burger flippers.

    Given the above, a real unemployment rate of 23% and about 1/2 of US jobs came from small businesses, mucking around with things like Obamacare and more regulations could have some really nasty consequences in the very near future as the small businessmen carrying this country make their decision on what to do. (Think Greece)

    So who is most effected?
    According to the 2008 US census, link there were 27,281,452 firms employing 120,903,551 people. There were only 18,469 Firms with 500 employees or more and they accounted for about half the employment or 61,209,560. The critical groups in the small business category are the Firms with 20 to 99 employees (526,307) with 20,684,691 people and Firms with 100 to 499 employees (90,386) with 17,547,567 people. That is 38,232,258 people or over one quarter of the Americans employed in the private sector whose bosses have tough decisions to make. Some are already saying they are going to not hire or even scale way back.

    If I can do a quicky internet search and find this info why the heck couldn’t our representatives do the same before they completely mucked up the economy? Business Week has reported that Small Business has shed jobs according to the Intuit Small Business Employment Index, with Intuit reporting a loss of 10,000 small business jobs in each of the last two months. Not only that small businesses are paying less. The monthly compensation for businesses with fewer than 20 employees is 10.2 percent lower than when the president took office.

  112. Ian H says November 7, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Republicans have absolutely no idea how to deal with the debt. …

    Who has no idea ‘how to deal with the debt’?

    Either this is the biggest non sequitur I’ve read today or I’m missing something vital …

    .

  113. Difficult to get through the house.

    A carbon tax at the point of the fossil fuel coming out of the ground or into the country is all good though.

    You probably need to give a rebate to exporters though.

  114. polistra says:
    What does happen: Presidents slack off in their second term. They feel like the hard work is done, and now it’s time to enjoy the perks of office.

    That would be lots of vacations, golf, and celebrity parties, n’est pas?

    Sounds a lot like the first term to me.

    Let’s hope so. Because if Obama decides to do all of this in reverse and actually gets busy working for his second term, we’ll have a real disaster on our hands.

  115. John from CA says:
    November 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    Sen. Kerry has already sneaked Cap and Trade into the Law of the Sea Treaty that only needs to be passed by the Senate.

    We’re screwed one way or the other.
    ________________________________
    It will take a 2/3 majority but we have the Lame duck session where lots of rotten laws get passed coming up and it is Sen. Kerry’s plan to hold off the vote till then. Wonder what he knows that we do not?

  116. Alex the skeptic says:
    November 7, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    How can this carbon tax halve the deficit?…

    This means one thing: Either it is an excuse to deliberately raise the price of energy (which will make industry fly to China more and more), or its the proverbial God making one go mad before he is completely destroyed, or both.

    Can’t HSBC do math?
    _______________________________
    HSBC — formerly the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation is a Chinese bank. Does that information help?

  117. Tom Gray says:
    November 7, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    The biggest danger to the world economy now is inflation such as was seen in the 1970s…

    A consumption tax … is a way to accomplish this….
    ____________________________
    I will grant you those two points but I will not grant the carbon tax. WHY?

    A carbon tax is a front end tax and cripples the production of wealth by increasing the cost of a crucial element, energy. I much prefer the Fair Tax a 23% general sales tax and ONLY that tax. This type of tax allows things like energy and basic foods, basic clothing to be taxed at a lower rate or not at all and give a real break to the poverty stricken. A carbon tax on energy, as the UK shows, condemns the fixed low income elderly to death. Two hundred people, most of them elderly, will die in Britain of cold-related diseases every day this winter, according to calculations by Britain’s leading advocacy group for old people..

    The Fair tax also taxes EVERYONE and not just wage earners as the current tax system does and that is why it will never pass. The wealthy are not about to give up their loop holes.

  118. American family and factory is already paying 1000% per kilowatt of electricity more, than Chinese family and factory. Carbon tax will produce extra money for the Obama’s green cronies…

    In 4y time, American deficit will be so high; China will have a say for what money are spent / how much to be cut from the military budget… similar as the Germans are controlling the Greek government. credit is always the biggest enemy

  119. Someone sent me this a year or so ago.
    Tax code explained in Beer
    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…

    If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1.
    The sixth would pay $3.
    The seventh would pay $7..
    The eighth would pay $12..
    The ninth would pay $18.
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

    So, that’s what they decided to do..

    The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

    They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

    So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

    And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
    The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

    “I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

    “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

    “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

    “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

    The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

    And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

    David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
    Professor of Economics.

    For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
    For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

  120. HSBC is a british bank set up in its hong kong colony in the 19th century, and heavily connected to opium trading. hence recent allegations of drug laundering are nothing new.

  121. It’s an Obamination. The DOW Jones dropped over 300 points today. With proposed higher taxes, expect more unemployment and a flight of Capital. I sold almost all my stocks over the last month as I expected an Obamdepression if he won another term. Obama has no worries about getting reelected so he doesn’t have to play Mr Popular anymore. He can try to implement all his left wing ideals which will lead to economic poverty, increased energy costs, more homeless, anger, anxiety and more personal and government debt. And how do you solve such unsurmountable problems? Same way as always. Go to war. Hope it doesn’t happen, but that is how it has always worked. CAGW will then just be a sidebar in the historical notes. I hope I am wrong. I live in a rural area in relative security. Those in cities are going to have a tough time regardless of whether I am right or wrong. Interesting times.

  122. How is Obama going to get a proposed carbon tax into legislation with the Republican controlled House? I don’t believe that such a proposal has much chance of approval.

  123. If a carbon tax were implemented in the US, would a business that sells wood stoves and wood do well?

  124. jknapp says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:37 am
    We have to reduce the deficit at some point. We borrowed the money and it needs to be paid back.

    Says who, and why should we? This “money” was created out of thin air by private bankers, most of whom aren’t even resident in the US, and lent at interest to the federal government thanks to the outsourcing of this Constitutional power under the (unratified) Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It’s a debt-based, fiat currency system in which the currency is debt, hence it can not and will not be paid back. So why bother? Do you also propose that we “pay back” the trillions in phony debt racked up by banks and other financial institutions deregulated under Clinton with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act?

  125. Wayne Delbeke says: ”It’s an Obamination. The DOW Jones dropped over 300 points today. With proposed higher taxes, expect more unemployment and a flight of Capital.”

    Poor people vote democrats -> he will produce more of them -> next election, more people will vote for them… smart move on his behalve.. In Greece, the union bosses / Red Brigade were for borrowing a lot – now those union bosses are demonstrating against austerity and getting even more support

  126. Theo Goodwin says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    If a carbon tax were implemented in the US, would a business that sells wood stoves and wood do well?

    Probably not, but people who sell axes, chain saws, and wood splitters may. Unintended consequences at its best.

  127. Gail Combs says:
    November 7, 2012 at 5:52 pm
    HSBC — formerly the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation is a Chinese bank. Does that information help?

    No, Gail, it isn’t a Chinese bank. HSBC was founded by British opium traffickers such as Keswick, Matheson, and Jardine to launder their opium and heroin funds. The firm has a long and sordid history of drug running and money laundering up to the Vietnam War and the present day.

    One would think that, given the Chinese aversion to the Western powers that visited decades of mercantile imperialism via force and unequal treaties, drugging their populace with opium, and forcing two Opium Wars on them, they are not likely to go along with any carbon tax schemes proffered by HSBC.

  128. I am not a professional economist, but the Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend plan seems fair and appropriate to this economic lay person. An important aspect of it is how it might influence other countries in following our lead – assuming the USA is still an economic world power. Other countries would not like us to collect the Carbon Tax on untaxed goods imported from them and would install their own Carbon Tax so that they collected that revenue. I don’t know of a better way to influence other countries.

    I also hope that we do not prevent the EPA from doing their job. The EPA, however, can only set standards and reduce emissions within the USA. Thus, we also need another approach to AGW that has leverage over other countries so that we are not put into a financial disadvantage. That is provided by a carbon tax and carbon duty on untaxed imports.

    REPLY: Tell you what, since you like it, you test it first. Charge yourself an appropriate tax, send it here, we’ll put it to good use. After two years of paying it, you can decide if you think it is fair. Like any tax, no refunds – Anthony

  129. Larry Hamlin says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    How is Obama going to get a proposed carbon tax into legislation with the Republican controlled House? I don’t believe that such a proposal has much chance of approval.

    He doesn’t need Congress… or the Legislature at all. The EPA, a “is an agency of the United States federal government which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations.” A part of the Executive Branch, it was brought in to being December 2, 1970 by Executive Order which was later ratified by the House and the Senate.

    In short, they legally can do what they please within their purview and there is not a thing that Congress can do about it, other than bleat like sheep and try to get whatever it is overturned.

    So… call it a “fine” or charge for a permit, and you have your instant tax… with out it being called a “tax.”

    The only other option is the Judiciary, who has a tendency to rewrite stuff as a tax that is still not called a tax by the executive branch… and which was never passed as a tax by the Legislative…. who has the only constitutional authority to levy a tax.

    Either way, they get what they want.

    Welcome to the Tyranny.

    You have to hand it to them, despite the planning of the founding fathers who organized our structure of government so that it was more resistant to falling into a tyranny as pure democracies do (as described in Plato’s Republic), they managed to put a de-facto tyranny in place.

    The privileged government class who enjoy the fruits of our labors and dictate to us what we can and can’t do.

  130. To Theo Goodwin,

    Yes, businesses that sell woodstoves should do better. This is because the combustion of biological carbon (such as wood) causes no increase in atmospheric CO2. This is because it is “OK” to recycle bio carbon which would recycle anyway. That is, if one does not burn wood, it would rot and turn to CO2 anyway very quickly on geological time scale. Thus, there would be no Carbon Tax associated with these natural sources of biological carbon. The Fee would be assigned only to the extraction of fossilized carbon, which if left undisturbed would remain in the ground forever.

  131. ericgrimsrud;
    Yes, businesses that sell woodstoves should do better. This is because the combustion of biological carbon (such as wood) causes no increase in atmospheric CO2.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Unless you burn the wood faster than it can grow which is exactly what would happen because the energy demands of our current world population far outstrip the ability of the biosphere to produce sufficient wood. The world’s forests would be denuded in a matter of years and we’d be burning straw and dung in those wood stoves. Wood stoves were obsoleted by coal for exactly that reason, we were cutting down the forests for fuel faster than they could grow, and that was when the population of the earth was measured in hundreds of millions, not billions.

    Do you even pause for a single moment to think things through before shooting your mouth off?

  132. ericgrimsrud says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:18 pm
    I am not a professional economist, but the Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend plan seems fair and appropriate to this economic lay person.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Having repeatedly demonstrated in thread after thread that you don’t understand physics, biology, statistics, or climate science in general, and that you spout drivel in support of AGW theory that even IPCC AR4 disagrees with, and you don’t understand that they disagree with you when the actual information showing that is provided to you, it should come as no shock that you don’t understand economics either.

  133. ericgrimsrud;
    Other countries would not like us to collect the Carbon Tax on untaxed goods imported from them and would install their own Carbon Tax so that they collected that revenue. I don’t know of a better way to influence other countries.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    They would do no such thing. What they would do instead is sue your butts off in American courts and they would win. You sere Eric, the United States of America has signed numerous trade agreements such as NAFTA that make it illegal to do any such thing. You not only don’t understand science or economics, it turns out that you don’t understand the world’s legal system or that of your own country’s.

    It might make more sense to start listing the things you have demonstrated an understanding of rather than the things you’ve demonstrated that you don’t, much shorter list, saves time and pixels.

  134. Fancy voting for a man who raised the national debt 55% in 4 year with ObamaCare to come, makes you wonder what will happen when the gravy-train of expectations runs over the financial cliff of reality.

  135. I think the EPA estimated that to monitor emissions over 250 tons it would have to increase its bureaucracy by a factor of 140. Not happening.

  136. Skeptik says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:55 pm

    …makes you wonder what will happen when the gravy-train of expectations runs over the financial cliff of reality.

    “Greece”

  137. “A carbon tax starting at $20 a ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021″
    ========
    How can a tax raise $154 billion? Does a tax create wealth by adding value? If not, the the $154 billion is simply money taken out of one pocket and placed in another. Typically taken out of the pockets of the poor and placed into the pockets of the rich, under the notion of “doing good”. Those creating the tax do very well indeed.

  138. Sounds like Obama has been talking to Australia’s grasping green-left Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. I recommend you guys work out some way of cutting communications before she whispers more sweet nothings in his easily seduced ear.

  139. Ok, the reflubitcrats should see the real opportunity to keep the reflubitcans deep into the political wilderness for decades, possibly. If they back off the extremist stances, like the carbon tax scheme. They should have Clinton’s second term still fresh in their minds. Especially after all the years they were in need of deep woods off.

    John Boehner and Mitch McConnell could have gotten with SpaghettiO and said, “We are going to resolve the fiscal cliff and alternative minimum tax, we will get it done.” Instead of a pledge to work together that markets didn’t believe for a minute.

    Pick the damn can up and quit kicking it down the road.

    It would have given reflubitcans an opening to eventually emerge from the political wilderness.

    Oh ‘ell, ewww, hmmm, of them are politicians, they definitely rode the short bus to school. So what looks like couldn’t possibly happen could easily happen.

  140. Aussie beat me to it. If you want to see how damaging a Carbon Tax is just check out Australia. We have had one for four months and people everywhere are complaining about the additional costs. Gillard said she would only charge the big “polluters” ie the power stations but guess what? They have the audacity to pass on their increased costs to the small “polluters” who seem to be going broke. Our ALP/Greens have the business accumen of a toadstool and think raising taxes gets the economy going. Well it does give more so the mendicants in society can have more but eventually the hard working ants will jack up and the lazy grasshoppers will starve. Seems St. Barack has caught the ALP disease. America is in for a rocky ride unless you can find a reason to impeach him.

  141. First, this will be like the Euro VAT tax where the tax is imposed “up the line”. It’s a truly great tax since the voting public won’t really be able to figure out how much they pay. It’s much better than the VAT since is blunts the normal opposition to taxes and substiture the “feel good about saving the planet and the environment”. Congress can raise the rate almost at will to huge amouts so long as it’s phased in over many years. Like that old fable of the frog in water that’s heated to boiling.

    Don’t think the headline “Obama may impose a carbon tax” is just an eye-catcher. Given this new “mandate”, since it’s not likely Congress will pass a carbon tax, at least not in the House, the EPA will simply set up a fee/fine/liscensing system where Obama will have a Carbon Czar simple impose it. Actually, Obama may call it a something else, like a Business Czar. Obama will likely win a court case on this. After all, it’s just a tax/fee/fine and SCOTUS has already ruled carbon is an enemy.

    Oh, and don’t even start to think the voters will toss them out. See the results this Tuesday.

  142. This is the problem re-electing that democrat. Bad Choice America, voting without thinking. Just wait for the rest of the bad news from the EPA later in November.
    You can’t undo your vote.

  143. “Lawrie Ayres says:
    November 8, 2012 at 12:56 am

    Gillard said she would only charge the big “polluters” ie the power stations but guess what?”

    And the real irony here in Australia is that “big polluters”, or “power stations”, like Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania are in the list of “top polluters”. And many people still don’t get the con!

  144. Romney was correct when he warned that another Obama term will turn the USA into Greece. Its started. Hurricane Sandy was localised to a few states and lasted a few hours. Hurricane Obama will hit the US, consequently the ROTW and will last for four years and its effects for decades at least. If US voters could not see this coming then it is what you deserve. The problem is that Obama’s first term effected me and my famly badly due to high energy prices, which caused loss of jobs world wide (except China), high inflation, property devaluation.

    Imagine what a repeat would cause. Which reminds me of the saying: Madness is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results each time.

  145. Winston Churchill described creating wealth by taxation as a trying to lift oneself up by standing in a bucket and pulling on the handle.

  146. Hmm. So $1.5e13 deficit (to date) vs $1.5e11 in tax revenues over 8 years. I put those numbers into my calculator it comes up with a sad face.

    Of course, that’s assuming it works, that the deficit doesn’t grow (ho ho ho), and that the economy behaves as predicted. Huh.

  147. Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, introduced a carbon tax in Australia because she believed the IPCC science was settled, that human’s were causing global warming, and a carbon tax would halt climate change by forcing people to change their behaviour over fossil fuels. Now go ask Australia if its carbon tax has had any impact on carbon dioxide emissions or in halting climate change. Then ask those Australians how they feel about their electricity prices that have been going up and up and up due to the carbon tax.

  148. How about a coordinated worldwide party – fueled by carbonated alcoholic beverages – for all ‘deniers’ as soon as atmospheric CO2 goes above 400ppm?

  149. Confused voter: But what of all them sweet words that thau spoke before the election?
    Obama: Aw, well… Well, that’s just what we call “pillow talk,” baby. That’s all.

  150. Still, sceptical voices should try to beat them at their own game. With good science.
    Make some submissions here and see if they’re somehow accepted now, after this election and King Wal~Mart bashing media having run a few.

    http://public.conxport.com/walmart/sponsorship/home.aspx

    I sat with Sam Walton in a snack bar at a store in Fayetteville, AR about 1980 and talked politics for a while. But I was a green as pie youngster back then. I used to work for them. I was really surprised at some of the things they WOULD get involved in.

    The ‘quail hunters’ bird dog wanted to runnoft with me, heh.

  151. So OBAMA allows a deficit to exist because he chooses to let private central bankers lend our govt money at interest, vesus printing that money on our own, which is perfectly legal for the US govt to do. Then to pay off the debt owed to the private central bankers, OBAMA create “carbon” laws that require us to give up our privacy and our freedom, in order to pay back the debt to these private central bankers.

    No, that doesn’t sound corrupt. Not corrupt at all. Not even Luciferian or Communitarian.

  152. Concerning the commenst of my several “admirers” on this thread,

    I have a simple response here to many criticism of my thoughts expressed above on this thread. Note that I will ignore here the numerous and mindless personal insults that the mods seem to think are just fine when delivered by this set of “regulars” at WUWT.

    First, concerning the small issue about wood burning stoves. In my short comment concerning it, I answered the question that had been asked. The suppliers of wood and pellet burning stoves will obviously benefit from a carbon tax. Such businesses are already doing very well in my area of the country and most of the heat for my own house, in fact, comes from a pellet stove. The technology works very well and it is cost effective. The question asked was not whether this bit of alternate energy would supply the entire world with its needs. Obviously it will not. So why would one of my “admirers” dis on me for not answering a question that was not asked? I suppose it was just so that he could lob a few more personal insults in my direction.

    Concerning several other insults and criticisms, the issue boils down to whether or not ones thinks that AGW is a serious problem that needs to be forcefully addressed ASAP. I am obviously such a person. And then in seeking solutions to this difficult problem – one then immediately runs into very challenging aspects of the solutions one thinks we should try. So then those that do not believe that AGW is a problem, of course, will pick away at the weak points of those solutions. Their object I suppose is to argue that the solutions won’t works, so this becomes just another reason to believe that AGW is all a big Hoax !!!! That sort of thinking is both deceptive and childish. It attacks the concept of AGW based on the argument that “there is nothing we can do about it anyway”, so AGW must be false!!!

    With this in mind, the personal insult often lobbed, “Grimsrud is a Fool!”, on this and other threads at WUWT become code words for “since AGW is all a Big Hoax, why even try to address it” as Grimsrud suggests we do.

    For any of the readers of WUWT that might like to see more evidence of my background (entirely spent in science and atmospheric chemistry) and the basis of my thoughts on climate change, see my website, ericgrimsrud.com, and, in particular, the free short course provided on it. Then please do feel free to conclude that Grimsrud is a Fool, but preferable after you have tried to learn the subject.

  153. “Applied to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022,” Robins said.
    ———————————————————————————————————————

    It would do no such thing because the monies would not be used to pay off the deficit. He would use the monies to create new spending programs.

  154. ericgrimsrud says:
    November 8, 2012 at 8:08 am

    “Their object I suppose is to argue that the solutions won’t works, so this becomes just another reason to believe that AGW is all a big Hoax !!!! That sort of thinking is both deceptive and childish. ”

    This seems to be an increasing propaganda talking point among cultists.

    The irony here is that it is completely “deceptive and childish” if a fix doesn’t work it doesn’t work period. Since its clear the fix doesn’t work why use it? This is the question that people ask and never get a response to.

    The simple answer is because the fix is not about fixing global warming it is about “fixing” other issues that could never been pushed in public less the doomsday threat of global warming. Thus that when a fix for doomsday doesn’t work and in fact could make the fabled doomsday worse… clearly the doomsday event is not an issue to the people pushing the “fix”. Thus most logical would argue that doomsday would be fake too since the pushers of said fix don’t believe in the doomsday they say is real.

    PS

    “Such businesses are already doing very well in my area of the country and most of the heat for my own house, in fact, comes from a pellet stove.”

    Don’t you know cutting down trees is evil and that causes global warming and that by doing such you are not only destroying our forests but the planet as well. [..insert more eco terrorists 1980s propaganda]. In short please stop destroying the planet with your wood stove.

  155. Please do not waste time on ericgrimsrud. I have attempted, in the past, having logical discussions with such as he and it is non-productive. It is unfortunate but it is what it is.

  156. Oh Canada !!!!

    The specific comments of David Ball shown below do merit careful consideration. They are:
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    David Ball says:
    November 8, 2012 at 5:40 am
    Grimsrud is knowingly supporting a destruction of the U.S. Economy. Claims of concern for his grandchildren seem like BS. THe future under Obama will NOT be good for the elderly or the infirm.

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/Tandt%2Bbetter%2BCanada%2BRomney%2Bhands%2Bdown/7501629/story.html

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    First off and as I pointed out on my previous post above, both David Ball and the article in the Calgary Herald do not even mention the issue of AGW – which, of course, their imagined adversaries take very seriously. This “little point” alone – if AGW is real – turns everything they say above on its head, of course. But let’s overlook that little point and move on to consider how the perspective of Canadians might differ on these issues. (note that I believe David Ball is also a Canadian).

    First, let me point out that for very good reason, I love Canada and, in particular the Province of Alberta. I spent 4 of my working years at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and was exposed to the research being done on the Tar Sands starting in 1970. I am very well aware of the effort the Albertans have put in over the last half century to develop a potentially valuable resource that has just recently become viable as the value of oil have increased as world supplies became more limited.

    Nevertheless, and as is explained in both my book and my free short course (see ericgrimsrud.com) the world can simply not stand the use and combustion of vast new sources of fossil fuels, such as the tar sands. It cannot ever stand the continued use of is vast reserves of coal – such as my present state of residence, Montana, has in great abundance. All of this follows very directly and understandably if one understands and believes that AGW has a high probability of occurrence as expected upon reading all of the science related in the scientific literature of this field.

    So what should be the difference between a Canadian and USA scientific opinion on the topic of AGW? Canada will certainly benefit in the short term if the Tar Sands are connected to the rest of the world via the Keystone XL pipeline. Also some portions of Canada will probably reap some benefit w.r.t. food production during the first phases of AGW. In addition, AGW is likely to make the very northern portions of Canada more amenable to extraction of minerals and more gas and oil.

    So that leaves us with a Canadian over the USA advantage over the short term, if AGW is allowed to proceed. Now, if we are also is willing to bet the future of the planet on the possibility that the notion of AGW is all a bit Hoax, then yes of course, Canadians and Americans will both benefit by non-action on AGW. Indeed, why address a problem if there is none? In that case the “happy version” of the science will have come true and the noses of Mr. Ball and the editors at the Calgary Herald will stop growing.

    In summary, if you are a Canadian and are mainly concerned about the short term, sure, go ahead and “be happy, don’t worry” while betting on the entire planet’s longer term future. If you are an American, however, those short term downsides already seem to be upon us. How much is it going to cost to dike some of our major cities against those “100 year” storms? And are we really pleased to learn that more of our immediate food supplies can be supplied to us by our good neighbor to the north as our own “bread basket” suffers increasing levels of drought?

    Oh Canada !!! I really do love you, but ………… !!!!

  157. I did a little additional math this morning. All of the green energy grants to companies like Solandra totaled around $ 7.4 billion. That is the equivalent of 2 days interest on the $ 16 trillion deficit. If you divide the $ 16 trillion by 330 million (high side US population), every man, woman and child currently owe $ 48, 484 to pay off the deficit. Open your wallets America.

  158. ericgrimsrud;
    Their object I suppose is to argue that the solutions won’t works, so this becomes just another reason to believe that AGW is all a big Hoax !!!!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I do not recall a single instance of anyone on this blog trying to argue that the solutions won’t work so AGW is a hoax. Not a single one ericgrimsrud. In fact, I challenge you to substantiate your claim. Provide a direct quote from this blog making such a claim.

    Quick now….you wouldn’t want to add fabrication of facts not to your other foolish statements.

  159. Jim G says:
    November 8, 2012 at 8:56 am
    Please do not waste time on ericgrimsrud. I have attempted, in the past, having logical discussions with such as he and it is non-productive. It is unfortunate but it is what it is.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Ah…. but he is a self proclaimed sock puppet for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a fact which the readership should be repeatedly reminded of. The discourse with ericgrimsrud is a regular reminder of what they are all about, and the complete hollowness of their “science” evident in the frequent discourse with ericgrimsrud (not to mention that pathetic excuse for a science site he keeps trying to promote).

    This is the best they’ve got? ericgrimsrud? Perhaps they don’t know about his activities in this forum, because if they did, they’d probably ask him to stop embarrassing them.

  160. The net result after the lost jobs and productivity will be less tax revenue, but we must not let logic stand in the way of class warfare.

  161. Keep also in mind that Illinois is the highest nuclear based economy in the US. Average cost per KwH is 12-14 cents for residential. In Wisconsin the cost per KwH is 6-7 cents per KwH. Half of Illinois. Also, Commonwealth Edison has $ 40 billion in stranded debt. What does that mean? It means ComEd will NEVER pay off the cost of the nukes that have been sitting for over 40 years. It also means that the US government pays for all of the storage of the waste that are located in Illinois. Why are we paying for all of this mismanaged energy production? Senators?!

  162. ericgrimsrud says:
    November 8, 2012 at 9:19 am
    “How much is it going to cost to dike some of our major cities against those “100 year” storms?”

    Thats depends… is the city repub or democrat… if democrat well billions probably trillions since 99% of the money will go into fraud and kick backs as it did in new orleans.

    The problem is once again its far cheaper even assuming pretty bad CAGW to simply adapt then go eco-nazi.

    PS still waiting on why you hate tree and endorse cutting down the rain forest etc, etc, etc eco-terrorist propaganda

  163. @ericgrimsrud
    I bought a corn/wood stove in 2005 when it was all the rage and used it for 5 seasons purely for economic reasons. Corn was $1.70/bushel, life was great and we saved money over propane. In time it became a ball and chain not much unlike the days of cutting wood. One of the driving forces for people jumping on the bandwagon at that time was “rebate checks” from the government and the promise of cheap fuel to heat their homes. That only lasted a couple years. By 2009 the dream began to fade and I read the tea leaves. Now those burning corn for fuel to heat their homes have more money than brains.

    As for the technology “works very well”, that is subjective. You are a slave to the stove, they are dirty (wood worse than corn), the quality of the wood pellets are not all equal, and as wood stove pellet manufacturers compete with the housing/paper and other wood product industries, prices are not stable and the supply is sparse in many areas.

    Typically the CP electronics are sensitive to power spikes as they are made cheaply, the motors wear out, gaskets go bad and the exhaust passages/vents need to be cleaned often depending on stove brand. Relying on these stoves to run unattended without a backup system is playing Russian roulette.

    Further, the glowing accolades for how “green” corn/wood stoves are is deceptive. With few exceptions (ex. Dell-Point), particulate emissions are still much higher than NG/propane. So while it makes some feel good thinking how much smaller their carbon footprint is over evil fossil fuel users, they are spewing more particulate emissions and other pollutants than NG/propane furnaces. The efficiency ratings of corn/wood pellet stoves are, how shall I put it, “exaggerated”..

    Basically, corn/wood stoves are a labor of love because they require a lot of labor to run and maintain, not to mention buying/transporting/storing/hauling to the stove 400+ bags of pellets. . Only true love justifies that. There is a reason why so many stove manufactures have gone belly up in the past 3 years.

  164. To DR

    Sorry to hear about the terrible experience you have had with your pellet stove. I have had mine going for about 4 years now with no problems whatsoever. Also, with no mess, very little work, and no observable emission problems. In addition, I also have a 6.3 kwatt solar panel system that provides all of our electrical needs for the year. This is because of the “net-metering” system we have with our utitlity – our meter runs backwards when the sun is shining and forward only during the evening. And we live in an area (Kalispell, MT) that is not particulary sunny all year. So our experience is that these things, along with a well designed house provides about 90% of our heating and electrical needs with very little inconvenience relative to normal power (gas and grid electric which was also have by the way).

    My apologies to those who do not like to hear that things of this sort can be done with ease. And to DR, it might be that you purchased a lousy pellet stove and/or have been buying low quality pellets – I can’t identify with the problems you describe. My system is controlled by a conventional thermostat and trickles pellets for several days from an enlarged hopper that I refill as needed – no more than every other day in the coldest winter months and much less when the weather is mild. Of course all of this also depends on house design – our’s is large but well designed for zonal comfort.

  165. Friends:

    The real issue is whether a Carbon Tax would be beneficial (it is not the ‘noises off’ from the ridiculous Eric Grimsrud).

    There are two possible benefits which supporters of a Carbon Tax assert; viz.
    1. A Carbon Tax would change how people behave and so reduce CO2 emissions
    and
    2. A Carbon Tax would reduce a government’s deficit.

    I shall ignore arguments about whether either of these ‘benefits’ is or is not desirable because a Carbon Tax cannot have either of the asserted effects.

    A Carbon Tax sufficient to alter how people behave cannot be imposed except by a totalitarian government.
    People need fuel to survive and they will oppose a government which restricts their ability to survive. This has been demonstrated by the ‘fuel escalator’ in the UK. This ‘escalator’ increased the tax on transport fuel by a percentage each year. Eventually fuel tax reached ~80% of the price of transport fuel. At that point hauliers rebelled. They went on strike and blockaded roads with the result that the country came to a halt. In other words, the only way that people amended their behaviour was to resist the tax. The government had no option but to stop the ‘fuel escalator’. This shows that any Carbon Tax would either not be sufficient to alter public behaviour or would result in public opposition that a government could not resist (unless the government were totalitarian).

    A Carbon Tax would increase a government’s deficit.
    All economic activity requires use of fuel. So, a Carbon Tax is a tax on economic activity. Reduced economic activity is reduced wealth production and, therefore, is reduced wealth from which a tax can be drawn. The net result can only be reduced tax income for the government. In other words, as others have pointed out, a Carbon Tax is an extreme example of the ‘broken window fallacy’.

    Why support something which cannot achieve its objectives?

    Richard

  166. ericgrimsrud says:
    November 8, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Nice how you pick and choose what you reply to and what you don’t.

    Upthread you accused people of arguing that certain AGW solutions don’t work and from this they claim that AGW is a hoax.

    Either produce evidence of same as requested, or admit that your accusation is false.

  167. ericgrimsrud says:
    November 8, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Still waiting on why you hate trees and want to destroy the rainforests… anytime you want to respond to that…

  168. Well, there you have it again. RichardsCourtney, just like David Ball, informs us of the “fact” that a Carbon Tax Plan can not work. Therefore, AGW must all be a hoax, right. Either that or “there is nothing we can do about it”.

    Richards, consider for a moment the enormous and largely unaddressed challenge your country was faced in the 1930’s. If he were still living, I suspect that Winston Churchill would refer to you as a “sheep in sheep’s clothing!” with respect to your inclination to bow to the powerful.

  169. Davidmhoffer,

    The response you have requested should be “on the way” if and when the mods allow it to go through. I don’t know why it has been held up – it followed very logially from your request. Eric

  170. To temp, Please understand that the mods do not want me to encourage extented interactions with persons that ask silly questions. I am only too pleased to honor their request.

  171. note to the mods. AS you know, Davidmhoffer has the impression that I am refusing to answer his question and I have the impression that I submitted that response to you. If you have lost it or if it did not get to you, please let me know so that I can redo it for DH. Thanks, ERic

    [Reply: Not in Spam folder. — mod.]

  172. A little OT from a Carbon Tax but a graduated tax system is sold on the idea that it will tax the rich to give to the poor.
    I wonder what will surprise Obama voters most, to find out that the he thinks they are too rich or that he considers the USA is too rich?

  173. ericgrimsrud;
    ericgrimsrud says:
    November 8, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    Well, there you have it again. RichardsCourtney, just like David Ball, informs us of the “fact” that a Carbon Tax Plan can not work. Therefore, AGW must all be a hoax
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I read his response and he said that a carbon tax could not work. No where in his response did he suggest this as evidence that AGW is a hoax.

  174. Ok, so here is another response to DavidMhoffer’s question shown below. He said:
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    I do not recall a single instance of anyone on this blog trying to argue that the solutions won’t work so AGW is a hoax. Not a single one ericgrimsrud. In fact, I challenge you to substantiate your claim. Provide a direct quote from this blog making such a claim.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Just to mention one that appears shortly before that of Mr. Hoffer:
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    David Ball says:

    November 8, 2012 at 5:40 am

    Grimsrud is knowingly supporting a destruction of the U.S. Economy. Claims of concern for his grandchildren seem like BS.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    In case you need a translation of his comments, Mr. Ball;’s first sentence says that a C tax will ruin the economy of the USA (that is, will not work) and the second suggests that my view of AGW is BS (that is, a hoax). If you require additional explanation of the point I was making, please understand that I might not be allowed by the mods to accommodate future silly questions of this sort.

  175. ericrgrimsrud;
    In case you need a translation of his comments
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    LOL
    Folks, in addition to the long list of things that ericgrimsrud has already demonstrated that he has no skill with, we can now add reading comprehension.

  176. stefanthedenier says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    …In 4y time, American deficit will be so high; China will have a say for what money are spent / how much to be cut from the military budget… similar as the Germans are controlling the Greek government. credit is always the biggest enemy….
    _____________________________________
    Actually the biggest enemy is printing fiat currency.

    In a fiat monetary system, there is no restrain on the amount of money that can be created. This allows unlimited credit creation. Initially, a rapid growth in the availability of credit is often mistaken for economic growth, as spending and business profits grow and frequently there is a rapid growth in equity prices. In the long run, however, the economy tends to suffer much more by the following contraction than it gained from the expansion in credit….

    In most cases, a fiat monetary system comes into existence as a result of excessive public debt. When the government is unable to repay all its debt in gold or silver, the temptation to remove physical backing rather than to default becomes irresistible…. (Sound familiar? Think Nixon)

    Hyper-inflation is the terminal stage of any fiat currency. In hyper-inflation, money looses most of its value practically overnight. Hyper-inflation is often the result of increasing regular inflation to the point where all confidence in money is lost. In a fiat monetary system, the value of money is based on confidence, and once that confidence is gone, money irreversibly becomes worthless, regardless of its scarcity. Gold has replaced every fiat currency for the past 3000 years.

    The United States has so far avoided hyper-inflation by shifting between a fiat and gold standard over the past 200 years….

    http://kwaves.com/fiat.htm

    So far the USA has avoided the problems of hyper-inflation because the US dollar is the the world reserve currency. However that classification is under attack. June 29, 2010 Dollar should be replaced as international standard, U.N. report says

    More on Hyper-inflation outlining the causes and why the author thinks the US dollar is safe. link

    If the US does go bankrupt it will be the World Bank/IMF to the rescue. Greece is part of the EU so the EU (Germany and France) hold the reins. The USA is closer to the Iceland bankruptcy where the bankers screwed over the population. However the Iceland government unlike the US government let the banks fail and did not bail them out.

    An IMF intervention in Iceland, which would necessarily involve accepting a series of harsh measures to restore fiscal and monetary stability, would underline the extraordinary reversal in the country’s fortunes after a decade-long, debt-fueled binge by the country’s banks, businesses and some private citizens. The banks, while avoiding the toxic mortgage securities that have humbled Wall Street, expanded aggressively at home and abroad. When credit tightened and the krona fell this year, they were unable to finance their debts…. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/worldbusiness/09iht-icebank.4.16827672.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    So what do that mean?

    Structural Adjustment Policies are economic policies which countries must follow in order to qualify for new World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans and help them make debt repayments on the older debts owed to commercial banks, governments and the World Bank….

    SAPs generally require countries to devalue their currencies against the dollar; lift import and export restrictions; balance their budgets and not overspend; and remove price controls and state subsidies.

    Devaluation makes their goods cheaper for foreigners to buy and theoretically makes foreign imports more expensive…..

    Balancing national budgets can be done by raising taxes, which the IMF frowns upon, or by cutting government spending, which it definitely recommends. As a result, SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care, and the removal of subsidies designed to control the price of basics such as food and milk. So SAPs hurt the poor most, because they depend heavily on these services and subsidies….

    By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is generally to hike prices up three or four times, increasing poverty to such an extent that riots are a frequent result.

    The term “Structural Adjustment Program” has gained such a negative connotation that the World Bank and IMF launched a new initiative, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Initiative, and makes countries develop Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). While the name has changed, with PRSPs, the World Bank is still forcing countries to adopt the same types of policies as SAPs.

    http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html

  177. Pelicanman says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:14 pm
    …… HSBC was founded by British opium traffickers such as Keswick, Matheson, and Jardine to launder their opium and heroin funds. The firm has a long and sordid history of drug running and money laundering up to the Vietnam War and the present day….
    ________________
    Then you will really appreciate this from the HSBC website:

    Ethical Banking

    Ethical banking is HSBC’s approach to lending and investment that follows guidelines set by international standards and is guided by the HSBC Group’s sustainability lending policies. This approach takes into consideration society’s expectations and the interests of future generations.

    The HSBC Group has also developed sustainability lending policies that address environmental and social issues which govern lending to certain industries and identify areas where involvement is prohibited. These policies are based on the highest international standards such as the Equator Principles…

    I guess the growing of various plants is ‘sustainable’ (snicker) as well as very profitable.

  178. GeoLurking says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:20 pm
    ….He doesn’t need Congress… or the Legislature at all. The EPA, a “is an agency of the United States federal government which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations.” A part of the Executive Branch, it was brought in to being December 2, 1970 by Executive Order which was later ratified by the House and the Senate.

    In short, they legally can do what they please within their purview and there is not a thing that Congress can do about it, other than bleat like sheep and try to get whatever it is overturned….
    ____________________________________
    There is actually something Congress can do and that is cut off the money flow. If Congress really wanted to balance the budget all they have to do is de-fund the bloated bureaucracy by slashing the budgets of the EPA, USDA, FDA, DOE…. the United States federal government with over four million employees worldwide and a lot of that is deadwood. It is time to start trimming.

    (The Universities need a trim job too.)

  179. ericgrimsrud says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    To Theo Goodwin,

    Yes, businesses that sell woodstoves should do better….
    ________________________________
    You are out of your ever loving tree!

    Woodstoves are highly regulated in most states. In some states burning is pretty much outlawed. Therefore the costs have skyrocketed. link (stove only does not include pad or chimney)

    Residential wood heaters, which includes wood stoves and outdoor boilers, contribute significantly to particulate air pollution. EPA has regulated wood stove particulate emissions since 1988….

    Wood Heaters sold in the United are required to undergo emission testing to comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) guidelines and safety testing to comply with Consumer Products Safety Commission and insurance requirements. The safety testing requirements determine the clearance and installation requirements for a wood heater….

    In addition to federal regulations that apply to all wood stove manufacturers, some states have enacted more stringent regulations. Also, many local jurisdictions have ordinances and rules in place that impact installation and use of wood stoves….

    http://www.combustionportal.org/woodstoves.cfm

    I heated with wood for years BTW and was going to install wood heating in my new home but the cost was prohibitive. Now I am looking at geothermal since it cools as well as heats.

  180. Gunga Din says:
    November 8, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    A little OT from a Carbon Tax but a graduated tax system is sold on the idea that it will tax the rich to give to the poor….
    ________________________
    And that is one of the biggest pieces of propaganda Evah!

    The rich are not taxed except for the 0-15% on taxable dividends because they do not earn regular paychecks. Most of their wealth is safely tucked where it is not taxed. If you look at the chart in this article the two biggest tax catagories are ‘Individual Income’ (tax on wages) and ‘Employment’ (social security, railroad retirement, medicare and such) and their contribution is doing nothing but increasing while excise tax and corporate tax are decreasing.

    And just to finish off here is the real scary chart of government spending vs GDP link

    Over 40% of GDP! gag, no wonder the deficit just keeps on increasing.

  181. ericgrimsrud:

    I am replying to your silly comment at November 8, 2012 at 4:56 pm. It says in total

    Well, there you have it again. RichardsCourtney, just like David Ball, informs us of the “fact” that a Carbon Tax Plan can not work. Therefore, AGW must all be a hoax, right. Either that or “there is nothing we can do about it”.

    Richards, consider for a moment the enormous and largely unaddressed challenge your country was faced in the 1930′s. If he were still living, I suspect that Winston Churchill would refer to you as a “sheep in sheep’s clothing!” with respect to your inclination to bow to the powerful.

    In my only post to this thread (at November 8, 2012 at 3:07 pm) I explained that UK history demonstrates how and why a Carbon Tax cannot work. This is because a Carbon Tax induces the populace to revolt against the tax long before the tax induces their behaviour to change in other ways.

    My post specifically said

    There are two possible benefits which supporters of a Carbon Tax assert; viz.
    1. A Carbon Tax would change how people behave and so reduce CO2 emissions
    and
    2. A Carbon Tax would reduce a government’s deficit.
    I shall ignore arguments about whether either of these ‘benefits’ is or is not desirable because a Carbon Tax cannot have either of the asserted effects.

    [emphasis added: RSC]

    So, my post specifically stated that it was NOT addressing the validity of the AGW-scare which I chose to “ignore”. Grimsrud, as usual, you have ignored what I did write and you have asserted I wrote something which I did not. You really are incorrigible.

    And I never “bow to the powerful”. My peers elected me to every elected post up to and including National Vice President of a TUC-affiliated trade union. They would not have elected me to represent them if I ever bowed to the powerful.

    A Carbon Tax is a way for the powerful to obtain monies from everybody else.
    I wrote my post because there is something “we can do about it”. We can oppose imposition of a Carbon Tax so it cannot provide the impoverishment which results in people revolting against it.

    Richard

  182. DR says:
    November 8, 2012 at 10:38 am

    May I suggest http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

    It all fits together with Obama’s agenda of a “carbon free” economy and sky rocketing electric rates.
    _______________________________
    Yes it does. Also expect to see the price of your food to sky-rocket as the last of the small farmers are driven into the city and food production is dependent on the “Big Boys” who will not settle for the current prices paid for farm products.

    Direct from Al Gore (I heard this first in my county extension office where a first hand witness was having conniption fits about it)

    “While presenting a national award to a Colorado FFA member, Gore asked the student what his/her life plans were. Upon hearing that the FFA member wanted to continue on in production agriculture, Gore reportedly replied that the young person should develop other plans because our production agriculture is being shifted out of the U.S. to the Third World.http://showcase.netins.net/web/sarahb/farm/

    I suggest reading what Sarah Brombaugh had to say in the rest of her article. As she says “If You Eat, You Are Involved In Farming” Too bad no one seems to understand that anymore.

    The other piece of law that will be used to drive people into the city is the Food Safety Modernization Act. I have first hand experience of how a USDA agent can twist the law to such an extent that it is impossible for the targeted farmer to meet the requirements because the changes demanded are too darned expense (well over $222,000 for just the fencing she wanted.) Another ‘I gotcha’ is the requirement that the OWNER must be available for any or all SURPRISE inspections. Tough when you hold down a full time job to support your farm. (That is from someone tangling with the USDA over this issue in the Animal Welfare Act)

    for those who does not think the USDA is doing this, here it is from the the USDA:

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 16, 2012–The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is continuing to move more swiftly and consistently to take enforcement action in response to animal welfare violations. As part of its effort to make its actions transparent and accessible to the public, APHIS is highlighting enforcement actions taken in response to violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and Horse Protection Act (HPA)

    http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2012/10/awa_oct.shtml

    Small farmers were lead to believe they would be exempt under the Tester amendment

    This is what the FDA has to say about that now.

    The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) recognizes the role of small businesses in the food industry and provides for various ways to assist small businesses in meeting the new food safety requirements of the law. [exemption? exemption? I don’t see no stinkin’ exemtion – GC] Specifically for several key provisions, the law mandates “plain language” guidance documents and phased-in effective dates….

    Hazard Analysis and Preventive Controls
    FDA will issue “plain language” guidance for small entities within 6 months of issuing hazard analysis/preventive control rule. (Section 103 of FSMA)
    Hazard analysis/preventive control rule takes effect for small businesses 6 months after effective date, and for very small businesses 18 months after effective date. (Section 103 of FSMA) [this is written procedures and documentation like drug companies use – it was based on cGMP]

    Produce Safety
    FDA will issue “plain language” guidance for small businesses within 6 months of issuing produce safety rule. (Section 105 of FSMA)
    Produce safety rule takes effect for small businesses 1 year after effective date, and for very small businesses 2 years after effective date. (Section 105 of FSMA)

    Tracking and Tracing
    FDA will issue “plain language” guidance for small businesses within 6 months of issuing rule on tracking and tracing food and recordkeeping. (Section 204 of FSMA)
    Rule on recordkeeping takes effect for small business 1 year after effective date, and for very small businesses 2 years after effective date. (Section 204 of FSMA)

    [And it goes on from there.]

    http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm268229.htm

    One of the dairy farmers in the UK reported he was spending 60% of his time on paperwork (Warmwell.com) US small farmers are already working a second job to keep their farms. How can they afford to pay for these ‘improvements’ in time and money?

    I suggest reading the WIKI on HACCP Hazard analysis and critical control points and . “FAO/WHO guidance to governments on the application of HACCP in small and/or less-developed food businesses” (PDF ).

    Hazard analysis and critical control points, or HACCP /ˈhæsʌp/, is a systematic preventive approach to food safety and pharmaceutical safety that identifies physical, allergenic, chemical, and biological hazards in production processes that can cause the finished product to be unsafe, and designs measurements to reduce these risks to a safe level. In this manner, HACCP is referred as the prevention of hazards rather than finished product inspection. The HACCP system can be used at all stages of a food chain, from food production and preparation processes including packaging, distribution, etc…

    the United States, HACCP compliance is regulated by 21 CFR part 120 and 123. Similarly, FAO/WHO published a guideline for all governments to handle the issue in small and less developed food businesses.

    The FAO/WHO document written for small/less developed food businesses (SLDBs) has such goodies as:

    Assemble HACCP team (Step 1)
    Where such expertise is not available on site, expert advice should be obtained from other sources, such as, trade and industry associations, independent experts, regulatory authorities, HACCP literature and HACCP guidance….

    Establish documentation and record keeping (Step 12)
    Expertly developed HACCP guidance materials… A simple record-keeping system can
    be effective and easily communicated to employees. It may be integrated into existing operations and may use existing paperwork, such as delivery invoices and checklists to record, for example, product temperatures….

    Prerequisite programmes to HACCP, including training, should be well established, fully operational and verified in order to facilitate the successful application and implementation of the HACCP system.

    While following these guidelines and considering the national policy options for the application of HACCP in the small business sector, it is necessary to take account of the existing food hygiene controls in the food business sector being targeted. What is the existing level of GHPs? Are they adequate? Where is strengthening required? Government assessment through planned inspection and auditing programmes should review the application of good hygiene principles as well as other food safety management systems operated by the food business. Where GHPs are inadequate, the initial objective of HACCP in SLDBs should be basic hygiene improvement. Hazard analysis can help focus on priority areas where improved hygiene is necessary. A specific HACCP plan – i.e. with identification of CCPs and control charts – could be developed to increase confidence in the control of parameters critical for food safety….

    Can’t you just see the farmers and small business owners in Africa or Mexico following these guidelines much less the one man operations here in the USA???

  183. ericrgrimsrud;
    In case you need a translation of his comments
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    davidmhoffer
    LOL
    Folks, in addition to the long list of things that ericgrimsrud has already demonstrated that he has no skill with, we can now add reading comprehension.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    David, ericrgrimsrud is a classic example of what Dr Evans calls the regulating class He is also an excellent example of why using funding from the government to pay a large amount of the labor force is very bad for the country. The word’s “Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach. Those that can’t teach teach teachers. And those who can’t do anything right become bureaucrats.” comes to mind. (Yeah, I made up the last part)

  184. richardscourtney says:
    November 9, 2012 at 3:22 am
    ….I explained that UK history demonstrates how and why a Carbon Tax cannot work. This is because a Carbon Tax induces the populace to revolt against the tax long before the tax induces their behaviour to change in other ways…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I sure as heck hope you are correct Richard but after seeing the Obama landslide victory I fear many of my countrymen are pretty much brain dead and only listen to the MSM propaganda. In the UK it has taken a rather large death toll AND the media covering it to get a public reaction not that the rich and powerful care, they are steaming ahead anyway.

    …An estimated 40,000 more people die between December and March in the UK than would be expected from death rates during other times of the year…. source

    From Energy Efficiency News

    …Deaths from late November to early January were above average, peaking at 3500 over the five-year average for the time of year.

    NEA says that cold, damp housing and unaffordable energy costs are among the most important factors in excess winter mortality….. source

    Of interest from the same site

    The renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CCS) industries have joined forces to call on the UK government to instigate a binding 2030 decarbonisation target for the power sector.

    n a letter to the Energy Secretary Ed Davey, RenewableUK, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) and the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA), which represent over 1000 companies including many of the UK’s largest energy players, urge the inclusion of a 2030 decarbonisation target in the forthcoming Energy Bill.

    “We very much support the government’s objectives for reforming the electricity market,” write the trade associations. “Like the government, we believe that a diverse energy mix is likely to be most cost-effective pathway to largely decarbonising the power sector, which means investment in nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels with CCS.”

    But while the proposed reforms should help raise the necessary investment, the signatories say that it is “vital” that momentum is maintained in building new low carbon generating capacity.

    Keeping investment coming could be helped, says the letter, by following the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation for a 2030 decarbonisation target.

    “If a reference were included in the Energy Bill to this objective, this would not only reassure potential investors by lowering the perceived political risks but could also reduce the cost of capital for decarbonising the power sector,” write RenewableUK, CCSA and NIA.

    http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/articles/i/5511/?cid=4

    So much for the energy sector not being behind CAGW. Note the fossil fuels with CCS. A boondoggle for lifting cash from the public if ever there was one.

  185. To RichardsCourtney and Friends,

    In order to accomplish anything, there must be a will do to so, of course, and no one is saying that changes of this magnitude are easy. If one tries harder one can envision a C tax plan that would not put the public into revolt. It is only the Fossil Fuel Lobby that will be put into revolt and they, of course, have unlimited funds for influencing the public and therefore tell them, as RC does, that it can’t be done. Again Winston Churchill would not be proud of you, RC.. Consider the following more optimistic view of a C Tax which when presented properly to the public could be supported by them.

    A Carbon Fee and 100% Dividend plan has a far greater chance of addressing the problem. A version of this has been presented to the US Congress and its details can be found at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf. The basics of this plan are as follows.

    A linearly increasing tax would be applied to the production of all fossil fuels (gas, oil, and coal) during the next several decades. The dividend thereby collected would be returned entirely to the public on a per capita basis (after a few years into it, a typical family of four would receive about $9,000 per year). In order to benefit from this arrangement, people would strive to increase their efficiency of fossil-fuel use and would explore use of the alternates. People from all income levels could actually make money if their dividend exceeded their carbon tax. The gradually increasing cost of fossil fuels would make the alternates increasingly more competitive and popular. Within a decade or so, this would lead to a “tipping point” at which time the alternates would become less expensive than the fossil fuels and the ultimate goal of near-zero CO2 emissions would be within sight.

    In addition, the Tax and Dividend plan has the great advantage of simplicity. Taxes would be applied at the point of fossil fuel production. This system could be installed very quickly and would require little additional bureaucracy for its management. The decisions of significance would be made by the consumers of energy — does one select taxed fossil fuels or does one select appropriately untaxed alternates. The adoption of similar systems in other countries would be promoted by charging import duties on all goods that were not subjected to such taxes in their own countries. There would be fewer lobby games to be play in DC. The only decision to be made there would concerning the magnitude of the tax each year. The FF lobbyist hate this plan. They want legislation and subsidies concerning FFs to be as complex as possible. So that only full time lawyers and lobbyists can play the game.

    So, one might wonder, why hasn’t the Tax and Dividend plan been more favored in Washington up to this point? The answer is probably best provided by Will Rogers’ timeless observation that “we have the best Congress money can buy”. The Tax and Dividend plan holds less interest for some very powerful special interests. As indicated above, the dividend collected under that plan would go to the public, not them. The only hope for passage of the Tax and Dividend plan is that the general public forcefully looks after its own interests. Perhaps with a new wind now blowing in Washington we might finally get some help from elected officials – I hope so.
    Is it fair? Of course, does the nuclear power industry charge for waste disposal? Of course it does. But will this do harm to the Fossil Fuel industries? Yes, of course, it will. The object, of course, is to eliminate all CO2 emissions by the end of this century by including the cost of CO2 waste disposal into the atmosphere.

    Because of my last sentence, one can see why representatives of the fossil fuel industries, such Richardscourtney, hate this plan and try to sink it before it gets to the public’s attention. This also explains why this group must do their best to undermine to credibility of science and the notion of AGW. Once they acknowledge that our excess CO2 constitutes a horrendous waste problem, a carbon tax would be hard to argue against. Do we allow nuclear wastes to be spread about on our streets? NO. Should we allow more CO2 to be dumped into our atmosphere? No also! And finally, should we allow the lobbyist for the FF industries tell us that the Public will not stand for reasonable measures that preserve the planet for their grandchildren ? I don’t think so – especially if we can get some assistance of our leadership. Winston Churchill once convinced the British public that “without victory in this battle, there will be no survival”. This can be done again.

  186. If I may translate grimsrud’s rant:

    “Tax, tax, tax!!”

    That’s about it, isn’t it? More Big Government.

    Jerk.

  187. This has nothing to do with the deficit. It is Obama’s payback to his “European” sponsors. Germans have been complaining about the US’s energy advantage. Nothing like a carbon tax to put the US at the same competitive disadvantage as the Germans. And they will gladly sell the US all the “solutions” and gadgets to save the Climate. This is WWIII. Climatemongering is only the foreplay.

  188. D Böehm says:
    November 9, 2012 at 8:15 am
    If I may translate grimsrud’s rant:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Where did you find a gibberish to english translator?

  189. Gail Combs:

    Thankyou for your post addressed to me at November 9, 2012 at 7:45 am. It makes several good points and I suggest that many would benefit from reading it.

    I write to discuss your disagreements with me.

    Firstly, I was writing about a Carbon Tax, and I said nothing about the recent election in the US. I am a British Subject and not a US Citizen so it would be presumptive of me to comment on the internal politics of your country.

    Secondly, you rightly point out that energy supplies have been used as a source of stealth taxes in the UK with resulting fuel poverty for many. The reason for this is precisely because – as I explained – UK government has learned ‘the hard way’ that large overt fuel taxes are opposed. A Carbon Tax is a large overt fuel tax.

    Stealth taxes are levies imposed by government in such a manner that the public have difficulty discerning that they are being taxed and by how much.

    An example of an energy stealth tax in the UK is the the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) which was imposed in 1989 by the Electricity Act 1989 which privatised UK electricity generation. The NFFO was intended as a subsidy to UK nuclear power generation which continued to be owned by the government. In the following year the NFFO was enlarged to include the renewable energy sector. Contracts from the last three rounds of the NFFO are still in place and the NFFO is levied at 2.71 pence per kWh. It is being replaced by the Renewables Obligation (RO) and the NFFO will be completely replaced by the RO in 2018. The RO is a very similar stealth tax which is used to subsidise windfarms.

    Both the NFFO and the RO extract funds from electricity generators who provide electricity to the electricity supply companies, so the electricity consumers are mostly unaware of them. The contribution of the NFFO and the RO to electricity prices does not appear on electricity bills presented to electricity consumers by the electricity supply companies.

    A Carbon Tax is not a steath tax. It is an overt tax on energy supply. As I explained in my post at November 8, 2012 at 3:07 pm, the UK Fuel Tax Escalator showed that people rebel at large and overt taxes on energy supplies. Hence, a Carbon Tax cannot work.

    However, as UK history also shows, governments can impose large energy stealth taxes. And this is important information for US Citizens because it may be possible for US Agencies (such as the EPA) to impose energy stealth taxes.

    As always, one needs to ‘watch the pea’. A public debate about Carbon Tax could be used as a smokescreen to ‘hide’ surreptitious imposition of energy stealth taxes.

    Richard

  190. ericgrimsrud:

    In your irrational rant addressed to me and others at November 9, 2012 at 7:55 am you say

    the Tax and Dividend plan has the great advantage of simplicity.

    Perhaps, but you fail to mention that it has the great disadvantage of damaging the national economy with resulting impoverishment of all and a consequential net reduction to tax revenues.

    Perhaps you would care to address reality instead of your imaginary conspiracy theories?

    Richard

  191. I saw this article when it came out.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/01/eco-taxes-study-financed-by-us-treasury-will-link-tax-code-to-carbon-emissions/

    This is either to find out how to craft a carbon tax to be submitted to the House or, and this didn’t occur to me till this morning, to find a way to incorporate what would be in effect a carbon tax into our existing tax code. I don’t know which but I do know the EPA has been used to promote policy.

  192. Given the fact that oxygen is the second most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe, maybe we should tax the universe for everything we can get. Think of the kingly powers of old where we should bow to those that tax us and whatever the kingly queen wants they get. Such powers of the universe have been diminishing lately except for the past few years. We are their subjects and we better get used to it. Long live the carbon queen and hail to the oxygen. What a bunch of crap!

  193. Gunga Din:

    re your post at November 9, 2012 at 1:25 pm.

    Yes, that is exactly the type of stealth tax of which I was warning in my post at November 9, 2012 at 11:50 am. As my post concluded

    However, as UK history also shows, governments can impose large energy stealth taxes. And this is important information for US Citizens because it may be possible for US Agencies (such as the EPA) to impose energy stealth taxes.

    As always, one needs to ‘watch the pea’. A public debate about Carbon Tax could be used as a smokescreen to ‘hide’ surreptitious imposition of energy stealth taxes.

    Richard

  194. Sorry to interupt this song fest but one comment RC made should be amplified. He said to me:
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Perhaps, but you fail to mention that it has the great disadvantage of damaging the national economy with resulting impoverishment of all and a consequential net reduction to tax revenues.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Even if there is a contest between our economy and the maintanance of livable conditions on the planet, I would choose the latter. The economy can rise again in time.

    But one doesn’t need to ruin the economy of course by saving the environment. Landmark changes in technology have always occurred before whenever they become necessary. When Ford invented the Model T, to you support there was push back by the blacksmithss of the world? Do you think it would have been wise to not support auto transportation in the early 20th century? With all changes there are always loosers and winners. Why listen to the advise of the loosers in this case – especially when the specific looser in this case is possibly a lobbyist for a fossil fuel industry (a resume would help clarify this point). IF you needed information concerning the health effects of using tobacco, do you ask a cigarette salesman for it.

  195. Grimsrud, you are such an economic illiterate. Here’s a clue: whenever income tax rates are cut, federal revenue increases. And whenever income taxes rates are raised, federal income declines.

    What do you want? More money for the government, or less?

    [PS: learn to spell loser. Abnd you are a rank hypocrite fossil fuel consumer who bites the hand that feeds you.]

  196. ericgrimsrud says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:51 am
    … Who knows – one might even dare to hope that the likes of Andrew Watts might also eventually see the obvious science associated the AGW problem and begin to be part of the solution.
    ===========================================================================
    He did see it. He is part of the solution. That’s why you have his blog to spew on.
    Hope you learn something here where all views (within decorum and site policy) are allowed.

  197. ericgrimsrud:

    Your post at November 9, 2012 at 2:59 pm attempts to comment on a true statement that I made concerning a Carbon Tax; viz.

    Perhaps, but you fail to mention that it has the great disadvantage of damaging the national economy with resulting impoverishment of all and a consequential net reduction to tax revenues.

    Your reply begins by saying

    Even if there is a contest between our economy and the maintanance of livable conditions on the planet, I would choose the latter. The economy can rise again in time.

    The economy IS what defines “liveable conditions”. The poor suffer then die young.

    People need wealth for food, transport, medical provisions. etc. which enable “liveable conditions”. A hurricane that hits Miami has much less effect on the populace than a similar hurricane which hits Haiti. etc.

    And you follow that with

    But one doesn’t need to ruin the economy of course by saving the environment.

    I don’t know which planet you inhabit but you seem to be pathetically ignorant of life here on planet Earth.

    Everybody wants to live in a healthy environment so desires the benefits of productive land together with clean air and water. Rich people can afford measures (e.g. sewerage, pollution controls, refuse disposal, etc.) which provide a good environment. But the poor have more immediate survival issues on which they must spend all they have.

    Hence, those who truly want a healthy environment want a strong and prosperous economy. Destroying the economy destroys the environment because it makes people poor.

    Please try to think before posting idiocy of the kind your post presents.

    Richard

  198. D Böehm:

    I write to comment on the important point you make in your post at November 9, 2012 at 3:30 pm where you write:

    whenever income tax rates are cut, federal revenue increases. And whenever income taxes rates are raised, federal income declines.

    All governments need to impose taxes because they exist to supply the provisions of the state. Some such provisions are essential, for example, military defence without which outside forces will overwhelm the country. Other government provisions are induced by the government system and the political philosophy of a nation. Hence, for example, in the US system there are costs of having the Presidency while in the UK system there are the (lesser) costs of having the Royal Family. etc. Each nation makes its choices based on its culture, but the government needs money to fulfill its obligations.

    However, government is not the country. Government is a service to the country. And services have costs.

    The costs of government are met by taxation and borrowing. So, in each country (whatever its political system, political philosophy, and cultural necessity) there has to be a balance between what the government spends (i.e. the services it provides) and what the country’s economy generates as gross domestic product (GDP).

    Failure to maintain that balance can only result in excess taxation which reduces GDP, or excessive borrowing which provides a delayed but very large reduction in GDP, or both. So, taxation is necessary but needs to be of a kind and of a magnitude which minimises deleterious effects on the economy.

    Simply, everything a government does depends on the economy of the country. And if the economy collapses then the country collapses. Hence, maintenance of the military and maintenance of the economy have similar importance for government: inadequate maintenance of either inevitably leads to destruction of the country by forces inside or outside the country. Taxation policies which ignore these fundamentals are subversive of the country’s security.

    Hence, maintenance of the economy is more important than “the environment” or anything else except defence (and a country’s defences require an adequate GDP to pay for them).

    Only when the economy is sufficiently strong then other things can be afforded. Of course, the priorities of those ‘other things’ will depend on the culture of the country.

    I am often astonished that there are people who are unaware of these basic facts of life.

    Richard

  199. RC, Concerning the posting of idiocies,

    You, Mr. Richardscourtney, are serving the role today of Nevil Chamberlian who thought he had brought “peace in our times” to the free world in 1939. Unlike you, however, I have respect for Nevil Chamberlin He genuinely thought he was doing the right thing for the Brits and was not simply a stooge for the Nazis.

    I am sure that you have many modern equivalents of Winston Churchill in your country who hold that same view of you. As time goes on, I suspect that you will disappear into the woodwork with your 30 pieces of silver, but will enjoy little respect from you fellow human beings and possibly even your grandchildren.

    Eric

  200. Grimsrud says it’s ok for him to use his pellet stove while others can freeze in the dark (although I have mostly wood heat myself). Grimsrud, who as DB points out, is economically illiterate and perhaps has never looked at Haiti which has a very low use of fossil fuels and is therefore a very green country. The problem is that instead of using fossil fuels they have cut down (poached essentially) all of their forests. They have no need for fuel to keep warm but merely use the wood to make charcoal for cooking.

    One consequence of the proposed carbon tax is very obvious: people will chop down our forests to survive. My rural county already has lots of people in fuel poverty. It’s often easy to tell because the propane company has taken away their 100 gallon tank(s). So instead they have 20 pound tanks normally used for BBQ which they hook up themselves and refill as they can afford it or barter for. They can’t afford an expensive trailer-safe wood stove. What they do instead is unsafe. We have had houses disappear in propane explosions.

    Electricity prices are already difficult to bear for people with heat pumps. They are typically $500 to $800 a month for Dec, Jan and Feb. The electric company will level bill, but rates are rising thanks in part to Obama’s war on coal. The carbon tax will greatly increase electricity prices and force more people to wood heat, often with makeshift barrel stoves.

    To his credit, Grimsrud sidestepped the give-more-money-to-politicians tax and proposed the revenue neutral tax instead. I would agree that if we were going to have such a stupid tax, that it would have to be rebated. But Grimsrud has yet to answer about the industry which would not get any rebate and simply move offshore to a country with cheaper fuel.

  201. Richard Courtney,

    I can’t disagree with anything in your 4:49 pm comment. Maybe I wasn’t clear, and should have written it this way: “Grimsrud, you are such an economic illiterate. Here’s a clue: whenever income tax rates have been cut, federal revenue has increased.. And whenever income taxes rates were raised, federal income has declined.

    Taxes are a necessary evil, for the reasons you listed: national defense, etc. But if the entire EPA, Commerce Department, Labor Department, Department of Education, and Department of Homeland Security were all redlined out of existence over night, a big part of the self-serving, self-perpetuating, and enormously expensive bureaucracy would be taken off the backs of taxpayers:

    I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means — except by getting off his back.
    ~ Leo Tolstoy

  202. ericgrimsrud;
    You, Mr. Richardscourtney, are serving the role today of Nevil Chamberlian who thought he had brought “peace in our times” to the free world in 1939.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    We can now add history to the list of things that ericgrimsrud doesn’t understand. There can be no equivalence between foolishly believing another person’s lies and scientific debate. The former is exclusively a matter of personal of trust, the latter exclusively a matter of facts and reason. That you cannot differentiate between the two makes your statement no less egregious for its ignorance.

    If we are to draw comparisons to historical figures, I would observe that the policies you endorse represent those of Saloth Sar Pol Pot. From 1975 to 1979, Pol Pot forced the Cambodian population into an agrarian (low carbon) economy. You flippantly remark that the economy will recover from the damage you propose to inflict upon it, but you seem unaware that there are dire consequences from that damage. 20% of the population of Cambodia starved to death in less than 5 years ericgrimsrud, approximately 2 million people. If your Pol Pot type measures were inflicted upon the world today, with the ratio of urban to agrarian population being many, Many, MANY times higher now than it was then, you would be sentencing billions to death and billions more to poverty stricken misery for their entire lives.

    The most foul language in existence cannot possibly convey the utter and complete contempt that you deserve.

  203. There is a phenomenon I have noted that plays our most clearly at WUWT. It is described in local Montana terms simply in the following way — ” s__t sticks”. ( I have not filled in the blanks here in order to be in compliance with the high standards of decorum that are applied to “outsiders” such as myself at WUWT). But note how the phenomon is verified here at WUWT. Whenever the call is sounded, that is, “alert! there appears to be a real scientist in our midst” the three forms of that stuff that sticks show up under the names of davidmhoffer, D Boehm, and the main condensation nuclei of all this sticking, someone who goes by the name of Sir RichardsCourtney. Put it all together have you have a formidable t___d to deal with !!

  204. Well, it looks like grimsrud sticks.☺
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Kinda gotta feel sorry for him. Seriously. He’s down to flinging poop. He even seems to think he is doing it in a witty fashion. On the one hand, I hate to see some of his remarks go unchallenged. On the other hand, is it fair to enter a battle of wits with an unarmed man? He really and truly believes his own tripe, and clearly is incapable of advocating his position based on facts and logic. When confronted with actual facts and actual logic, he flings poop. Sad, really sad.

  205. davidmhoffer:

    re your post at November 9, 2012 at 8:51 pm.

    The saddest of Grimsrud’s delusions is that he thinks he is a “real scientist”.

    Richard

  206. Davidmhoffer, You say;
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    davidmhoffer says:
    November 8, 2012 at 7:14 pm
    ericrgrimsrud;
    In case you need a translation of his comments
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    LOL
    Folks, in addition to the long list of things that ericgrimsrud has already demonstrated that he has no skill with, we can now add reading comprehension.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    This, after I provided you with an example precisely of the type you requested. What is the point of responding to your question? There is none at all. You will simply “dis” automatically rather than stick to the topic. Your goal is impress the faithful at WUWT and if it can’t be done with science, you resort to personal insults and BS.

  207. Richardscourtney requested an explanation from me above when he said:
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Perhaps you would care to address reality instead of your imaginary conspiracy theories?
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    I am surprised that you, RC, have not noticed to following facts.
    1) Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 to 394 ppm over the Industrial age.
    2) According to the Ice Core Record, it had not been more than 290 ppm over the last 800,000 years.
    3) For a couple centuries now, scientists have studied the GHG of our atmosphere and after those many years of study have concluded that CO2 is the most important permanent and well-mixed GHG and is the major GHG “Forcing Agent” for increased T.
    4) The most abundant and powerful GHG is water, it is true, water vapor it is a “Feedback Agent” whose concentration in the atmosphere increases with increased T. Thus, water vapor serves to amplify the warming effect of CO2 and any other factor that causes an increase in T.
    5) The T effects of cloud work both ways – towards warming and cooling – and remains the least understood of all feedback effects on warming. Roughly this effect is often thought to be a wash – that is, relatively little effect. There is no reason to concludes, however, that a negative feedback of clouds is going to “save us”, as some version of “happy science” do suggest.
    5) All of the above is no “conspiracy theory”. It is very well known throughout science and it is mainly why ALL of the professional scientific organizations of the USA have provided position statements that reaffirm the above and warn against further increases in atmospheric CO2.
    6) In view of the above, the only “conspiracy theory” about is the notion that support for the occurrence of AGW is driven by politics and not by science.

  208. ericgrimsrud;
    This, after I provided you with an example precisely of the type you requested.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Please Eric, I’m begging you. Stop. If you cannot understand that the example you provided in no way substantiates the claim you made, then all I can do is pity you.

  209. ericgrimsrud,

    It is depressing that someone like you has been trying to poison young minds with your pseudo-scientific nonsense. You say:

    ” Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 to 394 ppm over the Industrial age. According to the Ice Core Record, it had not been more than 290 ppm over the last 800,000 years.”

    So? That means CO2 was higher 800K years ago. In fact, it has been up to twenty times higher in the past with no ill effects. You say:

    “For a couple centuries now, scientists have studied the GHG of our atmosphere and after those many years of study have concluded that CO2 is the most important permanent and well-mixed GHG and is the major GHG ‘Forcing Agent’ for increased T.”

    Wrong as usual. Some scientists say that. Many more question it [cf: OISM Petition]. And note that there is no empirical measurement verifying AGW, which is only a conjecture. You say:

    “The most abundant and powerful GHG is water, it is true, water vapor it is a ‘Feedback Agent’ whose concentration in the atmosphere increases with increased T. Thus, water vapor serves to amplify the warming effect of CO2 and any other factor that causes an increase in T.”

    Once again, you have no empirical evidence for that conjecture. Further, both relative and absolute humidity have been declining for decades, therefore your assumption is deconstructed. You say:

    “The T effects of cloud work both ways – towards warming and cooling – and remains the least understood of all feedback effects on warming. Roughly this effect is often thought to be a wash – that is, relatively little effect. There is no reason to concludes, however, that a negative feedback of clouds is going to ‘save us’, as some version of ‘happy science’ do suggest.”

    That statement shows that you are reacting emotionally to a non-problem. There has been no global warming for sixteen years. There is no problem. And the verifiable temperature effect is to regulate CO2, not vice-versa. That is a testable, measurable fact, unlike your deluded belief in a “carbon” problem. The real world shows that CO2 is simply not a problem. You say:

    “All of the above is no ‘conspiracy theory’. It is very well known throughout science and it is mainly why ALL of the professional scientific organizations of the USA have provided position statements that reaffirm the above and warn against further increases in atmospheric CO2.”

    As usual, when you have no facts you fall back on your appeal to corrupt authorities. As Prof Richard Lindzen has written, those organizations have been heavily infiltrated by green activists. You say:

    “In view of the above, the only ‘conspiracy theory’ about is the notion that support for the occurrence of AGW is driven by politics and not by science.”

    Green activist infiltration, in addition to the lavish funding available, has corrupted those organizations, just as it has corrupted most of climate science. There is no doubt; Lindzen names names and organizations.

    Adam Smith wrote, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that there is in fact a conspiracy to keep the grant gravy train from being derailed.

    It was very simple as usual to deconstruct the anti-science nonsense in your last post. All you are doing is making baseless assertions. You have no empirical measurements to back up your opinion. The ease with which numerous commentators have deconstructed your fake science should make you realize that you are a dimwit among ordinary people. The posters here are too well educated to accept your annoying false claims. Really, it is hard not to conclude that you are just a crank.

  210. ericgrimsrud:

    At November 10, 2012 at 9:36 am you provide a numbered list of “facts” that you suggest I “have not noticed”.

    I address each in turn. I know from painful experience that you will not read my responses, but I would not want onlookers to think that I am ignoring your so-called “facts”.

    1) Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 to 394 ppm over the Industrial age.
    Perhaps it has. The dubious ice core data does indicate that, but other proxies (e.g. stomata data) do not.
    If it is assumed that your so-called “fact” is true, then so what?
    Increased atmospheric CO2 concentration is beneficial to the biosphere. And – as I have repeatedly explained to you with references and links – increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration above 280 ppmv has no discernible effect on climate.

    2) According to the Ice Core Record, it had not been more than 290 ppm over the last 800,000 years.
    According to the stomata data it has repeatedly been much higher than 290 ppmv during the last 10,000 years. Indeed, it has been higher than now (see e.g. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html ).
    Also, direct measurements in the 19th century showed higher atmospheric CO2 concentration than now.
    But if your “fact” were a true indication, then so what? (see response to point 1).

    3) For a couple centuries now, scientists have studied the GHG of our atmosphere and after those many years of study have concluded that CO2 is the most important permanent and well-mixed GHG and is the major GHG “Forcing Agent” for increased T.
    Important? In what way?
    If you mean that CO2 contributes to the natural greenhouse effect then it does. But it is NOT the major GHG “Forcing Agent” for increased T at present atmospheric C2 concentrations. Indeed, it is a trivial forcing agent for increased T at concentrations above 280 ppmv.
    As you say, the concentration of CO2 in the air has increased by ~40% since the industrial revolution (i.e. from ~280 ppmv to ~390 ppmv). This takes the degree of absorbtion of CO2 to ~80% of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere because of the logarithmic effect. And the globe has only warmed about 0.8deg.C since the industrial revolution. Most – if not all – of this rise is certainly recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA), but if it is assumed the entire temperature rise is from the CO2 increase then a further increase to reach double pre-industrial concentration (i.e. to ~560 ppmv) would only provide a further increase to global temperature of about 0.2 deg.C. And a further doubling of atmospheric CO2 (to 1,120 ppmv) would only raise global temperature by an additional 1.0 deg,C.

    4) The most abundant and powerful GHG is water, it is true, water vapor it is a “Feedback Agent” whose concentration in the atmosphere increases with increased T. Thus, water vapor serves to amplify the warming effect of CO2 and any other factor that causes an increase in T.
    No. For the asserted water vapour feedback (WVF) to occur then the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ (i.e. between 2 to 3 times the rate of warming at altitude than at the surface in the tropics) has to exist. The ‘tropospheric hot spot’ doesn’t exist.

    5) The T effects of cloud work both ways – towards warming and cooling – and remains the least understood of all feedback effects on warming. Roughly this effect is often thought to be a wash – that is, relatively little effect. There is no reason to concludes, however, that a negative feedback of clouds is going to “save us”, as some version of “happy science” do suggest.
    Clouds are not understood. But only 2% change to cloud cover would provide sufficient alteration to albedo to explain all global temperature rise since the LIA. Global temperature correlates to cloud cover during the satellite era. Atmospheric CO2 concentration does not correlate to global temperature at any time.

    6) All of the above is no “conspiracy theory”. It is very well known throughout science and it is mainly why ALL of the professional scientific organizations of the USA have provided position statements that reaffirm the above and warn against further increases in atmospheric CO2.
    No. The “professional scientific organizations of the USA” have adopted policy statements which have been imposed by their Executives without reference to their Memberships. The policy statements support continued supply of a major research funding source and, therefore, it would be surprising if those policy statements said other than they do (turkeys don’t vote for Christmas).

    7) In view of the above, the only “conspiracy theory” about is the notion that support for the occurrence of AGW is driven by politics and not by science.
    This is a very strange assertion for you to be putting to me.
    For decades I have consistently argued that the AGW-scare is not a conspiracy but results from a coincidence of interests.
    Whereas you have repeatedly asserted that the scientific response to the AGW-scare is a conspiracy of fossil fuel interests. Indeed, you have made that assertion in this thread.

    Richard

  211. You will recall that my 7 points and your responses to each of those 7 points was initiated by your comment:

    “Perhaps you would care to address reality instead of your imaginary conspiracy theories?

    So you then also addressed each those 7 points which you say constitute only “conspiracy theories” !!!! I suspect that the Royal Society of London would be ashamed of seeing that one their citizens holds such a low opinion of the science done in Great Britain as well a around the world during the last century and, in addition, to see how you have learned so little of it!!! And just how dumb to you think the readers of WUWT are ?

    Oh Well, If the mods allow me, I will be glad to point out the scientific foolishingness you just displayed in your discussion of the 7 points. As I have warned you before, you should avoid crossing over into the scientific world where your ignorance of the basics is always exposed – that is, if the mods allow my assessments of your “science” to pass through. If not, my brief recommendation to you here is if you want to fool some of the people some of the time, you should stick with your forte – condescension and personal insults void of scientific content.

  212. ericgrimsrud:

    At November 10, 2012 at 1:03 pm You reply to my provision of scientific rebuttals of each of your 7 unscientific assertions by saying

    So you then also addressed each those 7 points which you say constitute only “conspiracy theories” !!!!

    My only mention of “conspiracy theories” was to refute your assertions of them.

    However, my preface of my clear scientific rebuttals of your unscientific assertions said

    I know from painful experience that you will not read my responses,

    Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

    Richard

  213. to D Boehm, Concerning your responses to my 7 points, I just can’t bring myself to respond back to you. For example when you say:’

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    ” Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 to 394 ppm over the Industrial age. According to the Ice Core Record, it had not been more than 290 ppm over the last 800,000 years.”
    So? That means CO2 was higher 800K years ago. In fact, it has been up to twenty times higher in the past with no ill effects.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    What the H____ are you talking about?

    Sorry, but while being a teacher most of my life and doing my best to reach out to even the least gifted of students, I sometime had to admit that there was no point in trying – as if “nobody was home”, as they say.

  214. ericgrimsrud clearly lacks the intelligence necessary to understand my clear explanation. Everyone else seems to understand that if CO2 has ‘not been more than 290 ppm over the last 800,000 years’ [which is another bogus non-fact], that means that it was higher at that cherry-picked time. Further, CO2 has been much higher throughout the planet’s history. Currently the biosphere is starved of CO2. We need more, not less.

    As far as being a teacher, I feel real pity for the impressionable minds grimsrud has poisoned over the years with his pseudo-scientific nonsense — which we see here every day.

  215. D Boehm, Concerning what you have called that “cherry-ticked time” do you not know that the last 800,000 years is the period revealed by the Ice Core Record ?

  216. ericgrimsrud:

    At November 11, 2012 at 7:29 am you write

    D Boehm, Concerning what you have called that “cherry-ticked time” do you not know that the last 800,000 years is the period revealed by the Ice Core Record ?

    So what? Measurements and other proxies indicate the ice core records accurately show when atmospheric CO2 variations occurred but provide low and wrong indications of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    This is explained in my responses to your questions which I provided to you at November 10, 2012 at 11:18 am. Unfortunately, as your reply showed, your scientific knowledge and ability are insufficient for you to have understood those responses.

    Richard

  217. Richardscourtney, Concerning your “corrections” to my list of 7 points suggesting that AGW is real, let’s start with your discussion of point 2 which is shown below. When time allows I will move on to some of your other points – but only if, as always, the mods let me.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    2) According to the Ice Core Record, it had not been more than 290 ppm over the last 800,000 years. (my statement followed by yours below)

    According to the stomata data it has repeatedly been much higher than 290 ppmv during the last 10,000 years. Indeed, it has been higher than now (see e.g. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html ).
    Also, direct measurements in the 19th century showed higher atmospheric CO2 concentration than now.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Let’s first consider those 19th century measurements. Back then, those initial measurements were based on relatively primitive “wet chemical” methods rather than the modern instrumental method of today that can provide continuous and thousand of measurements automatically per day. Far more important still, is the fact that the “sampling sites” were not well chosen for those early measurements. I order to get background measurements, one must do the sampling at very remote locations that are very far removed from both sources and sink of CO2. Anywhere in the vicinity of plants or places of fossil fuel combustion, for example, must be ruled out. Thus these 19th century measurements varied greatly up and down because insufficient attention has placed on sampling – an understandable deficiency considering how little was known then about atmospheric CO2.

    Another point is that if CO2 background was higher then than today, that level would not have been reduced to the low levels of about 300 ppm in the middle of the 20th century. We now know that excess CO2 levels are not removed from the atmosphere that quickly. Centuries are required.

    I have personally inspected these 19th century measurements because of their historic value within my of field of interest, Analytical Chemistry. To suggest that those early measurements reflect the background levels at that time, however, is non-sense. They varied all over the map, as would have been expected in retrospect.

    Next, let’s consider the other source of measurements that RichardsCourtney suggests provided reliable measurements of background CO2 levels – that of plant stomata. The stomata research is good stuff and very interesting. It should not, however, be considered to be providing accurate measurements of background levels for several reasons. One reason again concerns the “sampling sites” that stomata measurements reflect. These measurements come from plant material and, therefore, reflect a sampling site that obviously has both CO2 sinks (living plants) and sources (decaying plants). It is not surprising, therefore, that stomata data tends to vary a lot both at a given location and at different locations. If such measurements reflected background CO2, they would not be nearly so variable.

    On the other hand the ice core record for CO2 obtained from the Antarctic is remarkably consistent with changes in the location of the Antarctic core. This is also understandable since the interior of that vast continent is far removed from sources and sinks of CO2. Thus the results provided by the Antarctic Ice Core Record do appear to provide superior measurements past background CO2 levels.

    While there is reason to further explore and refine the validity of the Ice Core Record, to suggest today that either the stomata measurements or those spurious few that were done by wet chemical methods of the 18th century provide better or even comparable evidence of past CO2 levels is either wishful or unjustifiably biased thinking, at best. More likely such a claim, if made by someone who claims to know the field, suggests an intentional misrepresentation of the available evidence.

  218. As usual, ericgrimsrud is wrong. He says:

    “…those initial measurements were based on relatively primitive “wet chemical” methods rather than the modern instrumental method of today…”

    19th Century CO2 measurements have been replicated numerous times, and have shown to be within ±3% accuracy. In his peer reviewed paper Beck proved that CO2 levels have been much higher than ‘290 ppm’ over the past century.

    Grimsrud is fabricating outright lies to support his alarmist narrative. He has poisoned young minds while teaching his anti-science nonsense, and now he is trying to do the same thing here on WUWT. But it will not work here, because the truth deconstructs grimsrud’s pseudo-science.

  219. DBoehm,

    You missed the main point. Beck’s measurements, for example, might have been very accurate. The problem was with his sampling site – too near both sources and sinks of CO2. Thus, his measurements varied a lot, some why above and some why below his average. Get it? Back then scientists did not even necessarily know there might have been such a thing as a single background level of CO2. I believe from what I remember in an article of his that he was simply reporting some measurements done in his local area. What you see as as evidence of an elevated global background for CO2 might have been the effect of a local manure pile !!! Back then they did not set up their sampling sites on places like the South Pole and Mount Mouna Loa in Hawaii.

    Nevertheless, always enjoy seeing your bitter, hateful side vent itself. By now that is so constant and expected, your tone alone tells all of us where you are coming from. So it you don’t mind, I’ll continue to respond only to the tiny bit of science you sometimes include. Have a nice day. Eric

  220. RichardsCourtney, Note that in your summary of my point 3 shown below, you have “conveniently” ignored two of the important effects on recent temperature that also must be considered. You statement is:
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    3) For a couple centuries now, scientists have studied the GHG of our atmosphere and after those many years of study have concluded that CO2 is the most important permanent and well-mixed GHG and is the major GHG “Forcing Agent” for increased T.
    Important? In what way?
    If you mean that CO2 contributes to the natural greenhouse effect then it does. But it is NOT the major GHG “Forcing Agent” for increased T at present atmospheric C2 concentrations. Indeed, it is a trivial forcing agent for increased T at concentrations above 280 ppmv.
    As you say, the concentration of CO2 in the air has increased by ~40% since the industrial revolution (i.e. from ~280 ppmv to ~390 ppmv). This takes the degree of absorbtion of CO2 to ~80% of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere because of the logarithmic effect. And the globe has only warmed about 0.8deg.C since the industrial revolution. Most – if not all – of this rise is certainly recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA), but if it is assumed the entire temperature rise is from the CO2 increase then a further increase to reach double pre-industrial concentration (i.e. to ~560 ppmv) would only provide a further increase to global temperature of about 0.2 deg.C. And a further doubling of atmospheric CO2 (to 1,120 ppmv) would only raise global temperature by an additional 1.0 deg,C.vv
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    One factor you left out is the known cooling effect of SO2-based anthropogenic particulate matter in the troposphere. The magnitude of this cooling effect is thought to be roughly half of the warming effect of the GHG’s. Since the GHG CO2 lasts for centuries and the particulates can be removed in a matter of weeks (if we decide to) the full GHG effect in the future could become 50% more dominant as the world rids itself of the particulates and the myriad health concerns they pose. Thus, for example, without this cloud of pollution we would have experienced about 1.2 C increase in T to date.
    Another factor you omitted is the delayed heating effect of an existing forcing due to the thermal inertia of the Earth (mainly its oceans). This delays the warming expected from present conditions by a couple of decades or so. Thus, we might have another increase of about 0.2 C in the pipeline due to this effect – even if we stop emitting CO2, which or course we are not going to do. That additional warming along with that associated with ridding the atm of its particulate pollution would result in a net T increase of about 1.5 C.
    I will also admit that man is very likely to burn almost another 500 gton or so of Carbon (hopefully just our gas and oil) before we get to a C-free energy world by the end of this century. That amount is approximately equal to that which man has burned during the Industrial Age. This along with expected increases in methane would lead to an T increase on the order of 3 C, at least.
    Thus, RichardCourtneys predictions of future temperatures and his recommendation that we not cut back on GHG issions ASAP seem foolhardy to me – no matter how sweet and comforting his message. With a 3C increase in average global T, the planet as we have known it for 10,000 years will be have changed to something quite different and less human friendly. We don’t know what that will be exactly, hunams are presently doing that experiment for the first time in recorded history.

  221. grimsrud now admits that Beck’s measurements ‘might have been very accurate’ — after previously claiming they were not accurate.

    Grimsrud says: “The problem was with his sampling site – too near both sources and sinks of CO2.” That is wrong, as usual. Obviously grimsrud is ignorant of Beck’s meticulous research, which detailed the accurate sampling of CO2 levels by Nobel laureates [when that award meant something] in such isolated locations as the unpopulated Ayrshire coast, mountaintops, the windward side of ships crossing the Pacific, Atlantic, Arctic and Antarctic oceans, the Sea of Okhotsk, the Barents Sea, etc.

    As always, grimsrud posts as if he knows the facts, when in reality his comments are only the false emissions of his enviro-wacko mindset. They are filled with pseudo-science, like his post above. Grimsrud is a hateful old man who was not content with poisoning young minds. Now he is trying to fabricate science. But he won’t get away with his anti-science nonsense here. When he posts false facts he will get slapped down in public, just like he was here.

  222. ericgrimsrud;
    I believe from what I remember in an article of his that he was simply reporting some measurements done in his local area.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You either did not understand what he wrote, or you are an outright liar. I corresponded extensively with Beck before his death and am very familiar with his work. The bulk of measurements that he used, thousands of them, were by well known researchers other than himself. He was meticulous in examining their records in order to exclude from his analysis those samples which lacked rigorous documentation, methodology, or were subject to the very CO2 sources and sinks that you claim may have contaminated his work.

    While there remain questions in regard to the accuracy of his results, even his most ardent detractors who studied his work in excruciating detail in order to compare to other bodies of evidence such as the ice core records make no such accusation against him.

    I had made up my mind to discontinue responding to you grimsrud, but you’ve insulted a personal friend of mine with an accusation that is not only patently false, it displays your willful ignorance of the subject matter at hand. You sir, assume a level of intelligence and knowledge for yourself that is not in evidence in anything that you have written on this site or on your own.

    I read a study once that suggested stupid people were completely unaware that they are stupid. In your case, we must assume that you at one point possessed the mental capacity to earn a PhD in Chemistry. We must now ask ourselves if that claim is as fabricated and patently false as the rest of Grimsrud’s claims, or if is suffering from declining mental faculties due to disease or age.

    If your degree is indeed real Dr Grimsrud, then get some help.

  223. grimsrud says:

    “Thus, for example, without this cloud of pollution we would have experienced about 1.2 C increase in T to date.”

    Grimsrud is claiming that pollution has EXACTLY balanced out AGW — for the past 150+ years. That is preposterous nonsense. Aside from the fact that there has been no global warming for the past sixteen years, the long term global warming trend since the LIA has not accelerated, despite the ≈40% rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2. The long term warming trend has remained exactly the same, therefore the rise in CO2 has made no difference.

    The planet is falsifying the AGW claims. I still think that there might possibly be some minuscule effect from CO2. But the facts show that any such effect is so small that it is not measurable. Thus, AGW can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.

  224. ericgrimsrud:

    I was tempted to ignore your twaddle addressed to me at November 11, 2012 at 9:23 am but it is possible – although extremely unlikely – that there may be onlookers who have not seen through you, so I give this brief rebuttal.

    You say

    Let’s first consider those 19th century measurements.

    etc.
    D Böehm forced you to concede you wrote falsehoods concerning the accuracy of those measurements so I need not add to that. But you also wrote
    Thus these 19th century measurements varied greatly up and down because insufficient attention has placed on sampling – an understandable deficiency considering how little was known then about atmospheric CO2.
    Those issues were fully addressed by the late Ernst Beck in his consolidation of those measurements. And I know for certain fact that his assessment of those issues was excellent because I assisted him to produce his report in the English language for publication. Simply, your assertion is – at best – misleading. And I put far more credence on my own “personal inspection” of Beck’s work than anything you could say.

    Then you say

    Another point is that if CO2 background was higher then than today, that level would not have been reduced to the low levels of about 300 ppm in the middle of the 20th century. We now know that excess CO2 levels are not removed from the atmosphere that quickly. Centuries are required.

    Oh! You “know” that, do you? How?
    I would greatly appreciate your explanation of this because I was co-author of two papers on the carbon cycle in 2005. Our detailed studies showed that so little is understood of the rate constants of mechanism in the carbon cycle that it is not possible to “know” what you claim to “know”. The pertinent paper is
    Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
    but I suspect you may find it – especially its maths – a bit difficult for you.

    Then you assert

    Next, let’s consider the other source of measurements that RichardsCourtney suggests provided reliable measurements of background CO2 levels – that of plant stomata. The stomata research is good stuff and very interesting. It should not, however, be considered to be providing accurate measurements of background levels for several reasons. One reason again concerns the “sampling sites” that stomata measurements reflect. These measurements come from plant material and, therefore, reflect a sampling site that obviously has both CO2 sinks (living plants) and sources (decaying plants). It is not surprising, therefore, that stomata data tends to vary a lot both at a given location and at different locations. If such measurements reflected background CO2, they would not be nearly so variable.

    That is so wrong as to be risible!
    Plants adjust their stomata in response to the so-called “background” atmospheric CO2 concentration. They don’t grow leaves on an hourly, daily or weekly basis. But they form stomata in their leaves for optimum efficiency of CO2 exchange at whatever is the prevailing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Also, atmospheric CO2 concentration is well-mixed throughout the atmosphere so samples from one place are as good as any other unless one wants to obtain the minor spatial variations for determination of CO2 flows.

    Then you follow your nonsense about stomata data with this

    On the other hand the ice core record for CO2 obtained from the Antarctic is remarkably consistent with changes in the location of the Antarctic core. This is also understandable since the interior of that vast continent is far removed from sources and sinks of CO2. Thus the results provided by the Antarctic Ice Core Record do appear to provide superior measurements past background CO2 levels.

    No! As I said to you at November 11, 2012 at 8:54 am

    Measurements and other proxies indicate the ice core records accurately show when atmospheric CO2 variations occurred but provide low and wrong indications of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    At this point I need to provide some background. I consider it a great honour to have been associated with the late, great Zbigniew Jaworowski throughout the final decades of his life. He was a great man, a true scientist and a sorely missed friend. Importantly, he is the ‘father’ of ice core studies who conducted dozens of field trips to obtain ice cores, and he devised most of the methods now used to analyse ice cores. Hence, his anger when he learned of – what he considered to be – the abuse for paleo-climate studies of the methods which he devised.

    I first became associated with him when the UN appointed him to determine the world-wide dispersal of radionucleatides from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. He was a professor from a communist country and the disaster was in a communist country at the height of the Cold War. But nobody questioned his appointment because he was unarguably the outstanding authority in his field. However, he feared that whatever he discovered could be portrayed as having partisan bias so he desired association for review of his work by someone in a coal industry (coal was a competitor to nuclear) from the Western side of the Iron Curtain. I was a material scientist at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (but not then the Senior Material Scientist) and filled that role. He was a communist and atheist while I am a socialist and Accredited Methodist Preacher, so we could be thought to be natural ‘enemies’, but I consider it a great honour that we were friends.

    Zeb was appalled at the misuse of the methods he devised and perfected for use to indicate past atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

    I think the best summary of Zeb’s objections to the ice core studies you so admire is his Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. It is titled “Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” and is dated March 19, 2004. It can be read at

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

    Zeb’s severely failing health meant he could only submit the statement in written form.

    Similarly, his failing health prevented his attending Heartland 1 and he asked me to present his paper on ice core data there, so I did.

    In light of the above, I can and do say with absolute certainty that you are plain wrong when you assert

    While there is reason to further explore and refine the validity of the Ice Core Record, to suggest today that either the stomata measurements or those spurious few that were done by wet chemical methods of the 18th century provide better or even comparable evidence of past CO2 levels is either wishful or unjustifiably biased thinking, at best. More likely such a claim, if made by someone who claims to know the field, suggests an intentional misrepresentation of the available evidence.

    It is you who is providing “an intentional misrepresentation of the available evidence”.

    Richard

  225. To my Three Masqueraders of Science,

    Very Good! As usual, you have all once again” coagulated” and are singing your songs in unison. Therefore, I can save us all some time by addressing all three of you together.

    In your last posts to me, you all got somewhat “sappy”, shall we say, with your touching stories of personal contacts with various legions of science whom you have happened to personally know. While I was pleased to learn that you do actually know some real scientists, do you think it really adds much to our discussions of the science to tell those touching tails. For example, I happen to know many distinguished scientists several of which are Noble Prize winners. Many of them have been hard working and “real nice guys” to boot. And the life work of some of them led to concepts in climate science that all three of you have severely criticized. So should with you and others my numerous experiences with those legions of science? Don’t think you want to hear it so why not save and share your sappy stories with Ann Landers.

    And to all three of you. Get serious, neither the sampling sites nor the robustness and frequency of sampling in yonder years compares with that used to day. In your description of yonder sampling sites, the ocean seems to be near in many of them and very few seemed to be a sufficient altitudes to overcome canopy effects.

    A challenge to you all: what values did your close personal friends of yore get for background CO2 in 1958? That year, as I hope you know,was the beginning of Keeling’s work and we know from it and companion measurements made at remote sites around the world that the background CO2 level was then 315 ppm. So if you can find a publication by Beck in 1958 that shows that background CO2 was 315 ppm you will have nailed your argument. So why not find that report ” Surely, you?r personal friends did not take that year off, did they?

    And DB, you said “Grimsrud is claiming that (particulate) pollution has EXACTLY balanced out AGW” Please read before you write – I said no such thing.

    RC, you don’t know that the extra CO2 has an extremely long life time? In addition to your own stuff, you should consider reading some of the scientific literature. In addition, why do you think that CO2 builds up in the atmosphere year after year when we add a small fraction to it relative to what nature puts in every year?

    And, how does the stomata of plants “see'” the true background level of CO2, if those plants are so near (in fact in contact with ) the ground? Do you think that ground level CO2 is the same as the background level? CO2 is naturally made and absorbed – all at ground level I hope you know. Or do they use only plants that are growing high in the sky?

    And finally to davidmhoffer, concerning your repeated threat to never write to me again, could I this time take that as a promise?

  226. grimsrud says:

    “So if you can find a publication by Beck in 1958 that shows that background CO2 was 315 ppm you will have nailed your argument.”

    Grimsrud is wrong as usual. Data from Beck. Argument nailed.

  227. It is no surprise Grimsrud was a teacher. Some of my teachers were the dumbest, most obtuse, unteachable creatures one could ever hope to avoid.

  228. And finally to davidmhoffer, concerning your repeated threat to never write to me again, could I this time take that as a promise?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Sure. As long as you promise not to misrepresent things other people said, make claims that can’t be be substantiated by the facts, and say things that make you look like a fool on a mission.

  229. richardscourtney says:
    November 9, 2012 at 11:50 am
    ……A Carbon Tax is not a steath tax. It is an overt tax on energy supply. As I explained in my post at November 8, 2012 at 3:07 pm, the UK Fuel Tax Escalator showed that people rebel at large and overt taxes on energy supplies. Hence, a Carbon Tax cannot work.

    ….However, as UK history also shows, governments can impose large energy stealth taxes. And this is important information for US Citizens because it may be possible for US Agencies (such as the EPA) to impose energy stealth taxes.

    As always, one needs to ‘watch the pea’. A public debate about Carbon Tax could be used as a smokescreen to ‘hide’ surreptitious imposition of energy stealth taxes.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thank you for the explanation.

    The USA like the UK is full of stealth taxes as the 151 Taxes in a Loaf of Bread shows.

    George Smith (ChiefIO) makes a case for the Federal “tax take” is only going to be 18% of GDP, the peak of the Laffer Curve, but that is the overt federal tax. The real tax rate is much higher.

    In my opinion the worst stealth tax is inflation.

    INFLATION, THE HIDDEN TAX
    In his classic book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920), John Maynard Keynes observed:

    “Lenin (the founder of the former communist Soviet Union) was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose”.

    Many people do not realize that inflation is with us, and it is an extremely destructive hidden tax, especially on the poor of all nations of the world. Inflation reduces the buying power of your money, so you become poorer, even if you have the same amount of money in the bank or in your pocket…

    WHAT EXACTLY IS INFLATION?
    People believe that inflation is rising prices. That is not quite true. Inflation means there is more money out there chasing the same number of goods and services. As a result, the value of the money is diluted.

  230. Gunga Din says:
    November 9, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    I saw this article when it came out.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/01/eco-taxes-study-financed-by-us-treasury-will-link-tax-code-to-carbon-emissions/

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Gee thanks, now I will have nightmares tonight. It is horrible to think that those leading this country are intent on it’s wholesale destruction but that is the only explanation I can come up with for the current madness.

    I am beginning to think living in N.Korea for a year should be a prerequisite for running for public office!

  231. richardscourtney says:
    November 9, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    I write to comment on the important point…

    All governments need to impose taxes because they exist to supply the provisions of the state. Some such provisions are essential, for example, military defence without which outside forces will overwhelm the country…

    The costs of government are met by taxation and borrowing. So, in each country (whatever its political system, political philosophy, and cultural necessity) there has to be a balance between what the government spends (i.e. the services it provides) and what the country’s economy generates as gross domestic product (GDP).

    Failure to maintain that balance can only result in excess taxation which reduces GDP, or excessive borrowing which provides a delayed but very large reduction in GDP, or both. So, taxation is necessary but needs to be of a kind and of a magnitude which minimises deleterious effects on the economy.

    Simply, everything a government does depends on the economy of the country. And if the economy collapses then the country collapses…. Taxation policies which ignore these fundamentals are subversive of the country’s security.

    Hence, maintenance of the economy is more important than “the environment” or anything else except defence (and a country’s defences require an adequate GDP to pay for them).

    Only when the economy is sufficiently strong then other things can be afforded. Of course, the priorities of those ‘other things’ will depend on the culture of the country.

    I am often astonished that there are people who are unaware of these basic facts of life.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Very well put. What astonishes me is that our elected representatives are unaware of these basic facts of life. Where in the name of the 1000 little gods do this jerks expect to live when the EU, Australia, Canada and the USA collapses? China? Brazil?

    Do they really think they can continue to live and SURVIVE in the USA?
    This guy is talking of the hidden tax, inflation but he is spot on.

    …Printing paper money that is not backed by gold and silver has many other negative effects connected with ever-higher prices and price instability. Here are just a few:

    · Businesses and individuals cannot plan for the future nearly as well. They simply cannot depend on stable raw material and other prices. Instead, they are forced to hoard goods, buy things they may not need but can use as bargaining chips and do other things that are costly and often counterproductive.

    · Businesses are often far more afraid to take risks in inflationary times. They simply don’t know what the future will bring. This is terrible, because businessmen taking risks is critical for innovation, research and development of new products and new technologies.

    · People lose faith in the government and in each other. Everyone has a tendency to believe that everyone else is cheating them. This causes social unrest, crime, violence, and other social problems.

    · Because planning is so difficult, maintaining a business or even a household becomes far more difficult. This causes many more bankruptcies, foreclosures, loss of homes and businesses and other very disruptive effects on society.

    · As social unrest grows, strikes, protests and riots occur more frequently because so few people understand inflation and how to cure it. Anger mounts and civil society disintegrates.

    http://www.drlwilson.com/Articles/INFLATON.htm

    We are already seeing that happen in Greece.
    According to CNN For the USA

    More than 100 million people in the United States of America get welfare from the federal government. 100 million.

    According to the Weekly Standard, Senate Republicans say that the federal government administers nearly “80 different overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs.”

    This figure of 100 million people does not include those who only receive Social Security or Medicare.

    The most popular welfare programs are food stamps and Medicaid, with the number of recipients in both these programs skyrocketing in the last decade. Food stamp recipients alone jumped from 17 million in 2000 to 45 million in 2011.

    And these 100 million people on welfare include citizens and non-citizens.

    In fact, a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies finds that 36% of immigrant-headed households get at least one form of welfare. That’s compared to 23% of native-born American households….

    http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/09/where-is-the-u-s-headed-if-more-than-100-million-people-get-welfare-2/

    …The Social Security board of trustees reported that there were 53.398 million Social Security beneficiaries in 2010….

    That is a healthy chunk of the adult US population receiving government funds in one form or another. No wonder Obama has been reported to have backed a U.N. committee’s call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional [small] arms trade hours after he was re-elected. { /sarc }

  232. D Böehm says:
    November 10, 2012 at 5:44 pm
    ….Currently the biosphere is starved of CO2. We need more, not less.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    If nothing else, I wish we could get that fact drummed into the heads of Activists.

    I have a waking nightmare of some idiots coming up with a really good CO2 sequestering process. Some other idiots in positions of power responding to Activists “More is better” rantings and forcing the CO2 levels down to ~220PPM. Then climate abruptly shifts towards the glacial mode, the oceans cool sucking up CO2 as they have in the past. Plants wither and starve starting in the higher elevations as does the animal life that depends on them.

    It is not completely out of the realm of possibilities either. AsWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution noted “… Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth’s climate can shift gears within a decade… Pushed past a threshold, the system can jump quickly from one stable operating mode to a completely different one,… Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur…”

    Would make a good Science Fiction book. Too bad I can not write.

    You could even add in the bursting of CO2 storage vessels and the flooding of cities/towns with CO2 and the silent deaths that follow as happens at lake Nyos and lake Monoun.

  233. D Böehm says:
    November 10, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    …As far as being a teacher, I feel real pity for the impressionable minds grimsrud has poisoned over the years with his pseudo-scientific nonsense — which we see here every day.
    _______________________________
    Now I know why the lab techs with BS chem degrees were such duds I had to fire them. (Wish I could add a /sarc but I can’t because the new grads were duds and I did fire them.)

  234. DBoehm, I am sincerely all ears concerning any measurements by Beck of the background CO2 levels in 1958. Perhaps you could provide more than the figure you did provide? In addition, if the techniques he used were superior, I should have thought those measurements would have continued to the present. If so, where might we find them? Eric

  235. davidmhoffer and richardscourtney,

    You were indeed honored to have known Zbigniew Jaworowski and Ernst Beck. If this current madness passed without a descent into the new “Dark Age” that Grimsrud so desires, these two men will have the recognition they deserve and a place in history.

  236. To David Ball,

    I am sorry to hear your “teachers were the dumbest”, I was more fortunate that you. At the University of Alberta where I was a post doc for 3 years, at the University of Wisconson, Madison, where I was a PhD candidate, and St, Olaf College in Minnesota where I recieved my BA degree and even in my high school in Zumbrota Minnesota, I was blessed by having a lot of excellent teachers.

    Thanks for helping me understand you and your background. At the same time, however, please know that its never too late to improve oneself. Best Regards, Eric

  237. richardscourtney says: ”Measurements and other proxies indicate the ice core records accurately show when atmospheric CO2 variations occurred but provide low and wrong indications of atmospheric CO2 concentration”

    Richard, contemporary measurements of CO2 are.not to inform; but to mislead: 1] monitoring is on Hawaii – lots of submarine volcanoes spewing CO2, then stop, or slow down – but for them.. must show ”increasing…?

    2] CO2 distribution is not evenly distributed; it would be same as saying: H2O in the air is 3000ppm… well, where? it goes from one extreme to another. Stating that is 380ppm, or any number – is for misleading. 3] CO2 helps condensation of water vapor and falls down together with the rain, rain washes things, did you know that? = before the rain was much more co2, than after – stating that is 385ppm ”FOR THIS YEAR” is a total crap. b] any farmer can tell you that: crops get much better from 2 inches of rain, than from equal amount of water by flood irrigation – BECAUSE RAIN BRINGS CO2 TO THE TREES / CROPS!!! More CO2 +H2O = green.

    4] because CO2 has NOTHING to do with the phony GLOBAL warming; why are you wasting your miserable life imitating a broken record? 5] around any coal powered power station – the vegetation is much healthier, than in Sahara – because it produces CO2 + water vapor from the cooling towers.

    Or, do you still see all that terrible smog coming out of the cooling towers as CO2,? (that’s how was constantly presented by the Australian media – they were scaring the people by that distilled water)…

  238. ericgrimsrud says:

    “Perhaps you could provide more than the figure you did provide?”

    Why? Because it’s never enough, is it? You stated:

    “So if you can find a publication by Beck in 1958 that shows that background CO2 was 315 ppm you will have nailed your argument.”

    I provided exactly that. So I ‘nailed the argument’. But now you want more. And if I provide more Beck info, which I easily can, you will demand still more, ad infinitum.

    So do your own homework. I have once again falsified your pseudo-science. I accepted your challenge and returned you a slam dunk. No need to play more word games with you. You lost the debate. Man up and admit it. Everyone here can see the score, crybaby.

  239. ericgrimsrud says:

    “I was a post doc for 3 years, at the University of Wisconson, Madison, where I was a PhD candidate…”

    So you flunked your PhD. Color me not surprised.

    Of course, the watering down of PhD degrees makes it possible for even below average students to obtain one.

  240. ericgrimsrud says:
    November 11, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    You have shown once again to be a presumptuous cur. Hilarious. You know nothing of me and less of science. The classic scenario of the doctors (teachers) making the worst patients (students).

  241. richardscourtney says: ”Measurements and other proxies indicate the ice core records accurately show when atmospheric CO2 variations occurred but provide low and wrong indications of atmospheric CO2 concentration”

    Richard! Ice core ”records” are interpreted in WRONG alphabet! ”Interpreter’s”.presumption is: it doesn’t rain or snow on Antarctic = 1,2km down on the bottom, ice must be 60000years old…?

    THE TRUTH: about 2m of ice is melted every year, from the bottom; by the geothermal heat – similar amount on the top is added every year by freeze-drying the moisture from the air – same as in the old fridges, needed defrosting; with zero rainfall / snowfall in the kitchen

    Bottom line: the ice that your scum was presuming that was 80000years old – was actually 350y old. There is no reliable data from ice, they know it, so should you!

    Do you want correct science: by invention of artificial fire about 55000y ago -> CO2 was increasing many times on different places. Before that; Sahara, Arabian peninsular, Australia, Gobi desert were covered by thick vegetation and 4feet deep mulch. Your ”ice core / proxy crap” is just that, crap. Remember what Stefan told you: rubbing two sticks turned big part of the planet into desert. No, not because produced extra CO2; but because after 10-30 burnings = no organic matter in the soil – vegetation belly up; erosion and winds take ash away / trace elements – without vegetation and swamps – rain-clouds avoid land = hotter days / colder nights follow = worse climate. The only more destructive than invention of artificial fire is; the contemporary ”Climate from Changing Stoppers” like you. Those ”proxies” are same lies, as any other lie you produce. Stick to my proofs and facts, forget ice core records. those that collected / made up those records, should be in jail; don’t rely on criminals

  242. stefanthedenier says:

    “…the ice that your scum was presuming …”

    Your hostile attacks against people on your own side cause self-inflicted wounds. You are your own worst enemy, and nothing you can say will change that fact.

    Try being supportive instead of hateful. You will have many more friends and supporters that way.

  243. D Boehm, Why would you suggest that I did not complete my PhD program when I did way back in 1970 at the U of Wis, Madison?

    And why would you withhold the reference for Burk’s measurement of background CO2 in 1958 – if it exists as you say it does.?

    Would the answer to both be that you are nothing more than a BSer of the First Water? Please do prove me wrong on the latter question. Of course, I know you are on the former.

  244. To David Ball, It is true that I know nothing about you – other than what you have confessed to us on this blog. You say you have had lousy teachers and I guess I have no reason to dispute that. All I know for sure is that I have have quite good teachers. Hope you are OK with that. Eric

  245. ericgrimsrud:

    Your ridiculous post at November 11, 2012 at 5:16 pm avoids the questions I posed to you and asks a silly question of me. I write to address those questions but first I make an important point.

    If you had read what I wrote about my associations with Ernst Beck and Zbigniew Jaworowski then you would have seen I was declaring an interest in that I worked with each of them on their work. Others may judge for themselves in what way(s) that ‘interest’ may ‘colour’ my views of their works (which is why failure to declare an interest is always reprehensible).

    Also, I reported that Jaworowski so trusted my understanding of his work on ice cores that he asked me to present his paper on it to the first Heartland Conference. Hence, I rejected your claims that you understand more of these matters than I do.

    The questions are as follows.

    Your post asks me

    And, how does the stomata of plants “see’” the true background level of CO2, if those plants are so near (in fact in contact with ) the ground? Do you think that ground level CO2 is the same as the background level? CO2 is naturally made and absorbed – all at ground level I hope you know. Or do they use only plants that are growing high in the sky?

    The analysed leaves for obtaining the stomata data are from trees. Such leaves are not grown at ground level.

    The plants adjust to background CO2 by increasing stomata until they obtain optimum CO2 exchange and ceasing to form additional stomata when the addition does not provide a benefit. Hence, their stomata indicate ‘background’ CO2. This is observed experimentally, and these experiments provide the calibration data for use of stomata to obtain indications of past atmospheric CO2 content.

    I am not a biologist and – unlike you – I don’t assert knowledge I don’t have. Therefore, I am not willing to discuss the precise mechanisms by which a tree determines the optimal stomata density. This need for adequate understanding of different subjects is why Arthur Rorsch, Dick Thoenes and I formed the multi-disciplinary (and multi-national) team which conducted the studies of the carbon cycle that I cited to you. Arthur Rorsch is a biologist who is one of Europe’s most respected and most honoured scientists.

    I have answered your questions, now please answer mine. I remind that I quoted you and asked in reply as follows

    Then you say

    Another point is that if CO2 background was higher then than today, that level would not have been reduced to the low levels of about 300 ppm in the middle of the 20th century. We now know that excess CO2 levels are not removed from the atmosphere that quickly. Centuries are required.

    Oh! You “know” that, do you? How?
    I would greatly appreciate your explanation of this because I was co-author of two papers on the carbon cycle in 2005. Our detailed studies showed that so little is understood of the rate constants of mechanism in the carbon cycle that it is not possible to “know” what you claim to “know”. The pertinent paper is
    Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)

    I still await your explanation.

    Richard

  246. To RichardsCourtney,

    So you are very sure that the air within the branches of a tree have the same concentration of CO2 as the truely backgound air high above the forest, are you? So you think that trees are tall enough to get above the canopy that the forest itself creates, do you? Just a bit of common sense suggests that might not be very good thinking there, Mr. Courtney . So it seems that it is your turn to “prove” something (and that one might be very difficult to find even any support for in view of the fact that CO2 fluxes (that is concentration gradients) are routinely observed above forests until one gets well above the atmospheric canopy effect.

    Since you asked, now it’s my turn to explain what I “know” about the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere

    First, I know it there has been a lot of peer-reviewed literature on this topic. Just to mention one very comprehensive recent paper by David Archer et al (can be retrieved at http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf ) was published in 2009 and is full of refs to earlier work. The very long lifetime of the excess CO2 is described and explained there in considerable detail.

    But in addition, one expects this from very basic observations of CO2’s presence in the atmosphere. The atmosphere now holds almost 800 gtons of C in the form of CO2. In 1850, the atmosphere had about 550 gtons C. That is an increase of about 250 gtons C. Since 1850, man has burned about 500 gtons C. One half of that comes to 250 gtons, the amount that has remained in the atmosphere.

    Now how is this possible if the annual input of C by man is “only” about 7 gtons per year today and was even smaller previously while the annual input by Mother Nature has been about 200 gtons per year? This is possible only if the loss of C from the atmosphere is very slow so that the excess simply accumulates.

    And we expect the rates of loss of the excess CO2 to be very slow. Loss by weathering for example is slow – it takes a long time to convert CO2 to limestone (CaCO3). I also takes a long time for the C in plants to be converted to fossil fuels. Atmospheric CO2 relatively rapidly does comes into an equilibrium condition with the CO2 dissolved in the oceans but that involves only the top surface layers of the oceans. Unfortunately the mixing of those surface layers with the depths below is also a very slow process requiring centuries.

    In addition to all of the above, events have occurred in the past that were triggered by huge carbon releases into the atmosphere. The best known of these is called the PE Thermal Maxima which occurred about 56 Myrs ago. This caused a global T rise that took about 150,000 years to return back to its previous value. Ocean core sample show how CaCO3 shells were similarly knocked back for about 150,000 years due to the increased atmospheric CO2 which in turn made the oceans more acidic which in turn increased the solubility of CaCO3, which in turn knocked back populations of shell-bearing critters. In short, it took a very long time for the excess CO2 in that atmosphere to be removed.

    Now that is what I “know” about the expected long life time of atmospheric CO2. And that is quite a lot of “knowing” given the universal fact that one can never know things in science with absolute certainty. We can only make conclusions of high probability based on the evidence available.

    So now it is your turn to explain how you “know” that the CO2 content in the air within a forest is the same as the background CO2 level that does exist starting say about one mile above that forest and upward for more than 30 miles into the stratosphere?

  247. To DBoehm in response to:
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    D Böehm says:
    November 11, 2012 at 8:39 pm
    ericgrimsrud says:
    “Perhaps you could provide more than the figure you did provide?”
    Why? Because it’s never enough, is it? You stated:
    “So if you can find a publication by Beck in 1958 that shows that background CO2 was 315 ppm you will have nailed your argument.”
    provided exactly that. So I ‘nailed the argument’. But now you want more.”
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Yes, of course, I want “more” expecially in this case where the definiiton of “more” is simply a reference to the literature from which you got the figure you showed. Such a request is standard practice in science, you know.

    In addition, it would be most interesting to see the “background CO2″ measurements made by either Beck himself or by others using his methods and his sampling sites over the entire period from 1958 to the present. One reason for this would be to compare the results obtained by his methods with those obtained by Keeling and the now dozen some monitorring stations throughout the world – all of these have yeilded essentially the same values for background CO2 over that entire period.

    In summary why hold back important reference information if, as you say, you could easily provide it ? We are “all ears” I am sure w.r.t. learning more about Beck’s important work – especially his measurements taken during an era for which we have confidence in our knowledge of the answer.

  248. ericgrimsrud is wrong, as usual. That link shows thirty six peer reviewed papers, all of which dispute the IPCC’s claim that CO2 is long lasting. Grimsrud is always wrong. He gets his misinformation from alarmist blogs, then passes it off here as if it were factual. grimsrud is a lunatic suffering from incurable cognitive dissonance.

    CO2 is simply not a problem. More is better. That has been proven repeatedly, and only misguided loons believe otherwise.

    Regarding Beck, grimsrud was shown to be flat wrong. As I correctly predicted, grimsrud will never admit that I called his bluff. He will always demand more sources. I am not posting this Beck link for grimsrud’s benefit; he is a cognitive dissonance-affected crazed individual whose mind is closed tight and filled with nonsense. But other readers can decide if grimsrud’s ridiculous claim that CO2 was always under 280 ppmv for the past 800K years is correct, or wrong.

    Here is an extract from Beck’s 2007 peer reviewed paper, which proves that grimsrud is wrong.

    More from Beck. Still more. And more.

    I have more, but those are sufficient to show that grimsrud’s silly assertion is flat wrong.

  249. The totally stupid ignorant ignore the freaking 16 trillion dollar elephant in the room is…what?
    What?

    Why are we even talking about cutting the deficit? The deficit is how much OVER your budget you are spending. We need to run a surplus, bump the idea of cutting the deficit, I want to hear about cutting the DEBT not the deficit. Day 1, our budget is $X. Anything, read: ANYTHING (Everything?) that has to be not spent to make that a reality, is simply not spent. Not borrowed. Not added to the debt.
    Let me break it down (all figures round DOWN)
    item billion
    medicare/medicaid 750.1
    soc sec 781.3
    defense 659.5
    income security 363.1
    debt interest 258.6
    fed pensions 212.3

    total 3024.9

    Federal Revenue 2430.8

    OK. Lets see… that means we need to cut EVERYTHING by 19.6% (equal across the board, why not? better than anything politicians have suggested – since they suggest nothing at all)

    (Figure sources, Congressional Budget Office via: usdebtclock org)

  250. So now it is your turn to explain how you “know”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I don’t believe that further response to grimsrud in this thread is warranted. He constantly refers to all the papers he has read, but his discussion of them makes it clear that he doesn’t understand them. When referred to papers that he hasn’t read, he either doesn’t read them at all, or doesn’t understand what he read, it is very difficult to say which. What we can say is that he’s made a complete fool of himself so many times in this thread that we need collect no further evidence to draw conclusions as to what he is.

  251. ericgrimsrud:

    This is a response to your post addressed to me at November 12, 2012 at 8:19 am.

    At November 11, 2012 at 5:16 pm you wrote

    And, how does the stomata of plants “see’” the true background level of CO2, if those plants are so near (in fact in contact with ) the ground? Do you think that ground level CO2 is the same as the background level? CO2 is naturally made and absorbed – all at ground level I hope you know. Or do they use only plants that are growing high in the sky?

    I answered all those points in my reply to you at November 12, 2012 at 5:12 am.

    I pointed out that the leaves of trees are NOT at “ground level” (you said they are in contact with the ground). So you have ‘changed your tune’ and now say they need to be “above the canopy of the forest itself”. No, they don’t.

    The important fact is that – as I explained – the stomata are calibrated by experiment so (contrary to your assertion) no “thinking” is required for absolute certainty in the knowledge that you are wrong.
    Your childish insults and arm-waving do not change that and fool nobody except perhaps yourself.

    And you are plain wrong when you say to me

    So it seems that it is your turn to “prove” something (and that one might be very difficult to find even any support for in view of the fact that CO2 fluxes (that is concentration gradients) are routinely observed above forests until one gets well above the atmospheric canopy effect.

    There is nothing for me to “prove”. It is an empirical fact that the trees adjust their stomata to suite the prevailing atmospheric CO2 concentration and the “fluxes” are not relevant.

    Then you attempt to justify your claim to “know” atmospheric CO2 concentration could not have been above present levels in the nineteenth century. I again remind that I asked you how you could “know” what you claimed in your writing

    Another point is that if CO2 background was higher then than today, that level would not have been reduced to the low levels of about 300 ppm in the middle of the 20th century. We now know that excess CO2 levels are not removed from the atmosphere that quickly. Centuries are required.

    Your long-winded attempt to justify that untrue assertion is laughable.

    You cite Archer et al. but do not say what they wrote and you say it supports your claim. But it does not. That paper addresses what they assert are future prospects for atmospheric CO2 concentration. Its only statement relevant to the issue we are discussing says

    There is a strong consensus across models of global carbon cycling, as exemplified by the ones presented here, that the climate perturbations from fossil fuel–CO2 release extend hundreds of thousands of years into the future. This is consistent with sedimentary records from the deep past, in particular a climate event known as the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, which consisted of a relatively sharp increase in atmospheric CO2 and ocean temperature, followed by a recovery, which took perhaps 150,000 years (Kennett & Stott 1991, Pagani et al. 2006) (see also The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum Climate Event sidebar).

    So, they consider outputs of a selected set of “models” and assert that shows something and they then assert – without evidence – that a single observed atmospheric CO2 fluctuation of unknown cause supports their contention.

    If you had read our paper which I cited then you would have known we demonstrated the existing data can be modelled to show anything.

    Then you copy and paste this

    But in addition, one expects this from very basic observations of CO2′s presence in the atmosphere. The atmosphere now holds almost 800 gtons of C in the form of CO2. In 1850, the atmosphere had about 550 gtons C. That is an increase of about 250 gtons C. Since 1850, man has burned about 500 gtons C. One half of that comes to 250 gtons, the amount that has remained in the atmosphere.

    That is not relevant to your claim that nature could not have sequestered the high levels of atmospheric CO2 measured to exist in the nineteenth century.

    However, it is plain wrong so – despite its irrelevance – I will refute it.

    The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (1.5 ppmv/year which corresponds to 3 GtC/year) is equal to almost half the human emission (6.5 GtC/year). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere. There are several other and much larger CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year with 150 GtC/year of this being from natural origin and 6.5 GtC/year from human origin. So, on the average, 3/156.5 = 2% of all emissions “accumulate”.

    Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activities. And nature sequesters almost all of the emitted CO2. You assume that nature does sequester all of it because of the human activity. But there are several reasons to doubt this. As example I will cite one of them.

    At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural processes can cope easily with the human production of CO2. A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2. But the above data indicates this is not possible.

    You follow that irrelevance with several assertions of what you “expect”. That, too, is all irrelevant. I asked you to justify your assertion: I did not ask you to provide additional unsubstantiated assertions (especially when what you “expect” has less credibility than effects of pixie dust).

    However, you do admit some of your ignorance when you ask
    Now how is this possible if the annual input of C by man is “only” about 7 gtons per year today and was even smaller previously while the annual input by Mother Nature has been about 200 gtons per year?

    I answer, because the addition by man is trivially small and is overwhelmed by natural fluctuation.

    But you follow your admission of ignorance by another of your silly and unsubstantiated assertions; i.e.

    This is possible only if the loss of C from the atmosphere is very slow so that the excess simply accumulates.

    Rubbish!
    The loss from the atmosphere is very, very fast compared to rate of human emission. Its rate is seen in the fall of atmospheric CO2 concentration which is part of the seasonal variation, and it is two orders of magnitude greater than the rate of human emission.

    You conclude by saying

    Now that is what I “know” about the expected long life time of atmospheric CO2. And that is quite a lot of “knowing” given the universal fact that one can never know things in science with absolute certainty. We can only make conclusions of high probability based on the evidence available.

    I am willing to agree that is what you know about the ability of atmospheric CO2 concentration to have fallen from its nineteenth century levels. It total it says you know nothing whatsoever about the matter.

    Richard

  252. To Davidmhoffer,

    Please! I provided an explanation that RC requested in support of a claim I had made and then I did the same to him. Like you probably, I then wondered how he could support his claim – I thought it would be very difficult to do and, indeed, did wonder how he would respond to is one. Have you just provided the answer to that question? That is, by asking the mods (as you and RC have before) to essentially kick me out of WUWT so that he will not have to answer the question he now has on his table.?

    Please have another look at the question I have posed to RC. It constitutes very basic and important science. Are you not interested in learning from RC why the air within the branches of a tree would be expected to represent the background level of CO2 that is present in the air about one mile and more above the forest?

    Why are you trying to shut down this discussion of the central scientific question concerning the meaning of stomata measurements?

    You might recall that a few months ago RC twice asked the mods on the Inhofe thread to kick me out immediately upon my arrival. It was our good fortune to have an excellent mod working that day who refused to accommodate RC’s wish. That mod went by the nickname, “Rep”, as I recall. In view of your own unfair and unwise request, it will be interesting to see if Rep’s preference for fairness is still alive and well at WUWT. Other than seeing your recommendation above, I have no reason to suspect that it is not.

    REPLY: The mod you refer to was Robert E. Phelan, aka “REP” who died while on the job here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/10/announcement-robert-phelan-wuwt-moderator-has-died/

    The WUWT community paid for his funeral expenses:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/11/update-on-bob-phelan-please-read/

    Apparently you are too caught up in your own self important arguments to remember this, though you commented on the first thread. I don’t really want to get into an argument with you (or waste time moderating this tiff) especially this week, so take a few days off until I get the webcast/broadcast done on Thursday night, then you can rant here to your heart’s content- Anthony

  253. to DBoehm,

    In doing my best to find and study the several “more”s you provided concerning the work of Beck, I did not find what I had requested.

    What I was looking for were reports by Beck written in the late 50’s concerning the background CO2 levels starting in about 1958, when the Keeling project (we all agree, I hope) along with the dozen or so other remote sensing labs throughout world showed us quite clearly what the background levels were from 58 to the present. Let me explain why.

    So, of course, in order to assess the claim that Beck’s measurement reflect background levels we need to see what he was reporting at the same time as he was measuring. With the usual advantages provided by 20/20 hidesight, of course, one must insist on seeing what results were obtained BEFORE everyone knew what the answer was very likely was. Keeling continuously published his results from 58 forward. Certainly Beck must have also if he thought his work was important, but I just haven’t seen any of his timely reports over that period.

    In the figures you provided appeared to be taken from recent conferences, I noted that those figures did not provide Beck measurements after about 1958. That also seemed very strange to me. I’m sure be must have made measurements after 58, so why aren’t they shown?
    I believe that all of these requests for “more” concern a natural followup of the scientific questions we have been discussing here. My genuine interest here is what Beck saw after about 1958 and what he reported at the time he saw it. That information will tell us something about the validity of his methods and sampling sites for determining background levels of CO2.

  254. ericgrimsrud:

    Your post at November 12, 2012 at 10:38 am asks D Boehm,

    What I was looking for were reports by Beck written in the late 50′s concerning the background CO2 levels starting in about 1958, when the Keeling project (we all agree, I hope) along with the dozen or so other remote sensing labs throughout world showed us quite clearly what the background levels were from 58 to the present. Let me explain why.

    Please try to not be an idiot.

    You asked D Boehm for information. He gave it to you.
    You then asked him for more information. He gave it to you.
    You now ask for information which does not exist. Nobody can give it to you.

    Read Beck’s excellent paper yourself instead of asking others to do your homework for you.

    Richard

  255. Mr. Watts

    You are way out of line with your comment to me posted for all to see. I know very well who REP was and about his untimely death. And while I have had nothing but good things to say about him you turn my comments around to make them sound callous You Sir are out of line in this instance but as always you are also the boss. Also as always you are free to reigh me in for with what ever PC prertences you can think of when I get too scientifically tough on your Three Masketeers. WUWT does indeed miss REP. I can only imagine that you are now pleased that RC, davy and DB can hold forth and not have to worry about scientific content for a whole week.. Have a nice trip – a Hartland retreat perhaps?

    IN the interest of fairness (silly thought I suppose) would you please post this goodbye statement on this tread? After trashing me with your last comment, you owe me at least that.

    REPLY: “Hartland”?? Once again, you are too caught up in your own self important dialog to notice what I’m talking about. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/29/announcement-wuwt-tv-to-counter-al-gores-24-hours-of-climate-reality-on-november-14th-and-15th/

    I simply don’t need the hassle/fights that your commentary brings here during this time, especially since tomorrow I’ll be going to light or no posting at all. Enjoy your respite. – Anthony

  256. Friends:

    This is a genuine request for information. I would welcome advice on how to communicate with ericgrimsrud and – if there are any – others like him.

    All my interactions with ericgrimsrud have been on WUWT and as this thread demonstrates – without exception – they have been unfortunate. Such inability to communicate at any level is disconcerting. It is possible that he has something to contribute but our total lack of mutual communication prevents me from discerning it.

    And it is possible that the problem is in part or in whole with me. If so then it probably relates to my frustration at what I perceive as being his constant “attack mode”. Perhaps my perception is wrong? Or my frustration is misplaced? Or …?

    I think the problem may be that he asserts everything he says as being “science” whether or not it relates to reality while he also asserts that anything I say is not science: I fail to understand these assertions and lose patience with them.

    I would welcome insights from observers. How can I achieve communication with ericgrimsrud and – if there are any – others like him?

    Richard

  257. Now that ericgrimsrud is thankfully absent, the rest of us can move on to a rational discussion.

    When I debate someone who makes an irrefutable point, or who provides evidence that can be verified and is not in dispute, I accept it even if it does not fit my world view. True scientific evidence can change my world view, and I have acknowledged that fact in the past,. For example, in a running debate with Ferdinand Englebeen, who convinced me of some facts through logic and patience.

    No so with grimsrud. His repeatedly deconstructed statements make no difference. He is a flaming troll who needs to go elsewhere. Name one person [beside ericgrimsrud] who wants him posting here. He is intent on making trouble, and that is exactly what he does. It is a pleasure to see him disappear for a while. Maybe someday he will be added permanently to the list of WUWT’s persona non grata site pests. He is little different from many on that list.

  258. richardscourtney;
    How can I achieve communication with ericgrimsrud and – if there are any
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Alas, I don’t think there are. I’m a salesman, I’m in the “persuasion” business. One of the things you learn in sales is to recognize the battles you cannot win. Sometimes customers get ideas in their heads that just defy logic and wind up costing their organizations millions upon millions of dollars. I’ve even been in situations where I’ve told the customer that my product would not solve his problem, and have him insist on buying it anyway. You would think that when the guy who sells the product says it won’t work for some specific purpose, the buyer would simply accept that. But I know from experience it doesn’t always work that way.

    I tell a story once in a while about a dear old lady I met at a family reunion. She was adamant that man had never walked on the moon and said she could prove it. How, I asked? Mosquitoes! she shouted. Mosquitoes? Yes! She said. If they can’t even get rid of mosquitoes, tiny little mosquitoes, how could they possibly go to the moon?

    The logic in her mind was unassailable. There was no value to her or to me to argue the point.

    So how to handle ericgrimsrud? In sales, you walk away from the battles you cannot win. Better to move on to those that you can win. The higher the stakes though, the harder it is to walk away. Giving up on a $1,000 commission? I do it all the time. Give up on a $100,000 commission when I know I’ve got the best solution for the customer, I just can’t find a way to convince him? Not so easy.

    As you know, I’ve tried quite a few different tactics with this guy. I’m genuinely convinced that there’s no more value in finding persuasive arguments that will get through to him than there is in arguing about mosquitoes and moon landings with charming old ladies. The problem is that the little old lady was unlikely to convince anyone else and no harm was likely to come from dropping the matter. Not so in the climate debate.

  259. The problem though, is that ericgrimsrud represents not a personal $1000.00 loss (er, commission).

    Not a $100,000.00 loss (er, waste of money, time, resources, and effort).

    But his prejudiced attitude towards accessible energy for the world, and his biases against development, and his “ignorants” typical of a flat-earth-deny-the-evidence religion against the benefits of increased carbon dioxide represent a 1.5 trillion dollar de-commission that will prove (has proven!) deadly to billions of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable.

    His agenda – the agenda and deliberate results of the professionally-paid and well-organized CAGW deists – IS the problem.

  260. Davidmhoffer and RACookPE1978:

    Sincere and heartfelt thanks for your responses (at November 12, 2012 at 5:12 pm and November 12, 2012 at 5:26 pm, repectively) to my request for help in my gaining understanding of how to overcome my inability to communicate with ericgrimsrud and similar.

    David,
    Thankyou very much for your clear and expert assessment. However, I don’t see it as a “battle” (except, perhaps, to overcome my limitations). I see it as an opportunity to help others to understand the issues. And that is why I don’t want to ‘walk away’.

    As I see it, the problem is
    (a) if the field is left to the grimsrud’s then the truth will never be proclaimed to others
    but
    (b) engagement with the grimsrud’s becomes a battle which obscures the truth from others.

    If Grimsrud were unique then the he would be trivial and could be ignored. But he is not. For example, very similar – but more clever – behaviour is exhibited by Matthew R Marler on the still current WUWT thread at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/08/trenberth-dials-up-the-warming-predictions/

    I hope that explains why my request for help was – and is – genuine.

    RACookPE1978,
    Yes, I agree with your point which you summarise as

    His agenda – the agenda and deliberate results of the professionally-paid and well-organized CAGW deists – IS the problem.

    And the recent revelations concerning how the “CAGW deists” have usurped the BBC demonstrate the importance of the need to deal with their methods.

    Again, thankyou to you both, and I would welcome any further thoughts on the problem from you and others.

    Richard

  261. Richard;
    Not for a single moment did I doubt that your request was genuine.

    The problem is as you say. Ignoring him makes his comments seem credible and engaging him results in an interminable discussion that is time consuming for us and the mods alike.

  262. @Titan: you wrote: Worse, a carbon tax will make EVERYTHING more expensive, not simply electricity, but every single thing we eat and purchase.

    Of course you are right. However, the CPI index that started being used in 2009, no longer considers food and energy prices as part of the CPI. We know the most important thing to life is energy, in the form of food, and in the form of non-food energy. In order to make believe there is no inflation so Bernanke can do QE infinity, and drive Keynsian theory, they no longer count what really matters. Ugghhhh

  263. D Böehm says: ”Try being supportive instead of hateful. You will have many more friends and supporters that way”

    .Böehm, Courtney &Co and similar should be in jail for intentionally misleading the ignorant; friends, supporters like them, I don’t need!

    Lets get few things straight: I’m not trying to educate Richard; he is not interested in the truth. I’m placing the comment; for people that occasionally visit / people that are not in fanaticism -> for them to get the message on the street, that: active Warmist &Fakes are in ideology, not searching for the truth. The 90% of the people on the street would like to know the truth. I’m exposing what’s happening by people like Courtney & Co, and people like you; not to be relayed on. One can take skunks to water, but can’t make them to drink.

    As far as, not wanting to debate what I say; is because is impossible to argue against real proofs, by using regular crap; not because I say something wrong. The way you insult each other, with my limited English, I cannot compete. B] the way you & Courtney & Co cannot find anything wrong in my proofs – Hansen, Mann cannot either; but as long as you people recycle old crap – the top manipulators can avoid facing the real proofs that: warmings / coolings are NEVER global; therefore Warmist don’t have a case! Am I correct? If Courtney starts to agree with my proofs, facts and formulas – then I would start questioning, if I have something wrong. Avoiding me = admission that: you all know that they are wrong (proof in my next comment:)

  264. stefan,

    Calling people “skunks” who probably agree with a lot of what you say does your cause no good at all. It’s stupid, really. You ought to read How To Win Friends And Influence People by Dale Carnegie. Note that ‘winning friends’ and ‘influencing people’ go hand in hand.

  265. D Böehm says: ”Try being supportive instead of hateful. You will have many more friends and supporters that way”

    To prove to you, why they run away from real proofs; here is an example, close to your tent: They made it official that: ‘’during the northern summer; the planet is WARMER BY up to 3,8C than during the southern summer.’’ WOW, what a science!…
    I believe that: their data shows even bigger difference; but they are not heroic enough, to admit -> ‘’smoothening follows’’

    The truth: not enough EXTRA WARMTH is in the atmosphere during the northern summer than during southern, to boil one chicken egg with it!!! BUT, it shows that ‘’their modelling’’ is complete crap! It shows warmer, for two unscientific reasons::

    #1: because 75% of the monitoring places are on the N/H, 25% only on the southern. Example: if 75 workers get pay increase by 10% for 6 months and 25 workers get pay decrease by 10% = overall together they will be getting more money; than for the next 6 months – when 75 workers get salary decreased by 10% and the other 25 workers get increased their salary by that much. What a con science is used; by not having monitoring places spaced equally!!!… Reason everybody is scared from the truth, and are trying to silence my proofs / science!!! =====
    Reason #2: on the S/H is much more water, than on the northern hemisphere. Where is ‘’more water’’ DAYS ARE COOLER / NIGHTS WARMER!!! It proves that: monitoring only for the ‘’HOTTEST MINUTE’’ in 24h, and ignoring the other 1439 minutes – is the mother of all con and misleading science!!! BY BOTH CAMPS!!! Warmth in every minute in 24h has SAME value; but doesn’t go up / down equally as the hottest minute!!!

    That’s admission that they are wrong by 3,8C in 6 months – then look at their ”GLOBAL” temperature charts for the last 150y, 1000y, 6000 years – they ”pretend” to be correct in one hundredth of a degree and occasionally in one thousandth of a degree, for every year. That’s what kind of people FROM BOTH CAMPS are talking about their ”scientific proofs”… where is their credibility, what kind of ”computer models” can be wrong by 3,8C for 6 months non-existent difference in temp – but are talking ”with precision” about 1920’s, 1850’s, 5BC…?

    150y ago, there were only few unreliable thermometers; data collected by unreliable people. But that data is used as correct – sometime, by some, is stated as: unreliable; but was / IS used as reliable anyway, by those same people. 400-500-700 years ago.. well the correct GLOBAL temperature ”BY THEIR PROXY” was discovered from: if there were 12 bushels of grain per acre in Devon-shire, England; then next year was only 11,5 bushels -> that means that: in all of Oceania, south America and the other 90% of the planet – the temperature following year was ”COLDER BY 0,04C, on the WHOLE planet…. WOW! What a science – precision in one hundredth of a degree. Look at their GLOBAL temp charts = it looks as seismographs / the planet has a hi-fever…?

    Their GLOBAL temp cycles are even more sick. They found in Colorado Canyon erosion that: certain deposits repeat themselves -> instantly they name them as ”factual cycles” in other country, or other continent, alluvial deposits don’t mach the ones in Colorado – instead of admitting that: THOSE CYCLES were not GLOBAL – they just ad more and more different cycles. Blame the sun, solar dust; blame everything that cannot take them to court for defamation. Instead of starting to analyse: how the deterioration of vegetation / climate was gradually affected by human inventing the ARTIFICIALLY CREATION OF FIRE. In Eurasia + North Africa 50000-60000 years ago – north America 15000y ago – in Australia maybe 30000y ago. After 20-30 intensive bushfires, the vegetation gives up -> without vegetation -> rainfall decreases = become hotter days / colder nights / more extreme climate. Unfortunately, admitting the truth – so that the climate can be improved – which would bring money to the engineers and working people; but not to the Organized Crime

    Before the invention of artificial fires by human – the only fires the earth did know was from volcanoes and lightening storms. Volcanoes aren’t very often – electric storm is associated with rain = because of wet; fire doesn’t go far. Artificial fires first started, when was mulch everywhere – after many generation; the mongrels were turning the best lands into desert… now the Fakes are ”SKEPTICAL” if human can change the climate… self destructive idiots…
    See, using ”LIA” cycles; will not scare Hansen, Mann – they did know all the pagan crap and built their fortress on the top of it – you are not going to shock them by keep repeating it. BUT, by using my proofs, that: ” that foundation is a quicksand.!!! isn’t it easier for you to run away, than to argue against real proofs; it’s same with the rest – I rest my case!

  266. D Böehm says: ”stefan, Calling people “skunks” who probably agree with a lot of what you say does your cause no good at all. It’s stupid”

    Mate, Freud said that: fanatic cannot be influenced. Well, maybe by electric shock treatments; I will never try to convince / influence Courtney &Co; BUT,for me is important, the people with open mind – people that wouldn’t waste their life in reciting old unsubstantiated crap – people that visit occasionally the blogosphere – AND the 90% of the people on the street.

    Australians are paying the highest carbon tax; not because Karoly, Hansen have any legitimate proof – cannot be legitimate proofs; because is no such a thing as GLOBAL warming. They are paying it, because of Plimer & Joanne Nova!!! Reciting constantly old pagan fairy-tales.

    When Plimer was printing his book – in Australia, Julia Gillard back-stubbed the elected prime minister – because he was for carbon tax… === after the apparatchiks analyzed Plimer’s book – they realized that: he is making zombies of people that suppose to oppose them – he is the Warmist best Christmas present -> Gillard reintroduced the tax. Everyone of Plimer’s zomby is saving Gotham City; by regurgitating Plimer’s crap. If you can only imagine the crimes in progress; you would have realized why the people on the street needs to be informed as soon as possible: not to rely on fanatics from both sides. For them to start demanding: Warmist in jail / Fakes on loony-farm. When for somebody EGO and cult believes is everything… trying to convince that the laws of physics were the same for millions of years; doesn’t work, I’ve tried, trust me – that’s why I’ve run out of red carpet for ideology fanatics. The planet wasn’t warming – planet is not cooling!!

  267. If the primary reason for the carbon tax is to reduce the deficit then perhaps this becomes an acceptable ‘tax’ on the carbon consuming middle income class disguised as a tax on big oil, big coal, etc. Of course, the effects will be painful all around, but that debt must be paid someday and we will all be made less prosperous. Climate Change would appear to be part of the political smoke and mirrors for this ‘inconvenient’ tax.

    Of course, many people have become convinced (falsely, I believe) that there is an urgent need to halt carbon burning to save the planet.

    CBS NEWS money watch
    Foreign holdings of US debt hit $5.46 trillion

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57550970/foreign-holdings-of-us-debt-hit-$5.46-trillion/

    The U.S. population is about 313,882,785. (Debt Clock) Thus each person in this country should be responsible for paying about $17,000 to these foreign investors.

  268. To all interested in the historical measurements of Beck concerning CO2 background levels.

    OK, so apparently the measurements by Beck of the type I had been looking for do not exist. So let’s then go with what have we do have – that is, the references DBoehm provided above concerning the work of Beck.

    So if you look at those graphs showing Beck’s reconstructions of CO2’s background levels, there is a huge peak in CO2 around 1943. And it is a very fast one rising from the base line in 1936 at around 330 ppm to 430 ppm in 1943. That is 100 ppm in only 7 years time! And then the same thing occurs back the other way – back down to the baseline of 330 ppm in 1953, again 100 ppm in only 10 years time! That is a huge amount of CO2 which must come and go from and to other reservoirs of carbon somewhere on our planet. At the same time, note that such huge changes have not been subsequently seen in the many years of the Keeling et all measurements from 1958 to the present at Mount Mauna Loa. Nor have they been seen in the dozen or so other modern monitoring stations that have been set up since 1958 at remote locations throughout the world .

    I suppose that the release of 210 gton carbon (equivalent to 100 ppm) in 7 years time just prior to 1943 is theoretically possible – as result of a huge release from volcanoes, undersea vents, meteorite impacts, or the burning about 1/3 of all vegetation on earth, even though we are not aware of that something like that happened during that period. Concerning the opposite change after 1943 – that 210 gtons C were absorbed in ten years time, by either by vegetation or oceans, seems downright impossible . To my knowledge there simply is no process in the natural world which can absorb such a huge quantity of CO2 in such a short time. Also note that this assumes that all of that emitted carbon stayed in the atmosphere. Since we think that only about half of it does on this time scale, if correct, that would mean that the amount emitted just prior to 1943 would be about twice as great or about 400 gtons.

    We also have other sources of CO2 measurements or proxies which, if reliable, should also suggest CO2 variations around 1943, if they occurred. But none of these show that specific variability around 1943, which should be present if the atmospheric CO2 content increased and decreased about 30% in such a short period. These other method include both the ice core and stomata record. While we might expect the stomata record to produce somewhat higher than background measurements -due to ground level canopy effects – we would nevertheless expect them to reflect the 30% increase claimed by Beck, if such an event occurred in around 1943 and if the stomata reflect background CO2 levels. They don’t, however. So either Beck’s data or both the ice core and stomata data are wrong. In addition, I would have expected that this huge burst of CO2 would have been expected to detectably increase the acidity of the oceans between ’36 and ’43 with a return to normal the following seven years. To my knowledge no such changes in the pH of the oceans have been reported over that period.
    In summary, Beck’s conclusions do not seem reasonable to me. Perhaps one of you who does believe in the validity of Beck’s reconstructions can unravel some of the mysteries I have related here. I and all scientist, I should think, tend to hold the notion that measurements should make physical sense and when they do not appear to we should try to understand the basis of apparent discrepancies.

  269. RE: Beck Controversy — I do not think it makes much difference …

    We are dealing with the effect of the narrow 15 micron CO2 absorption line on radiant energy leaving the Earth. The radiant energy leaving the Earth as calculated by the MODTRAN line spectrum radiation calculation program, which is available as web utility from the University of Chicago, shows that the effect of doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about ONE degree C for each complete DOUBLING of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That relationship holds from 20 PPM to well over 1000 PPM.

    The CO2 absorption band is like a one-foot wide tree in the middle of a 10-foot wide stream.

    Look at three fingers; say that represents the nominal 280 PPM pre-industrial concentration; then look at four fingers face-on; say that represents the current, near 396 PPM CO2 concentration. Then view these fingers edge-on. As each finger represents enough CO2 to completely absorb all 15 micron radiation, this edge-on view represents the difference between 280 and 396 PPM CO2 concentrations in blocking the escape of radiant heat from the atmosphere.

    For Reference; here is a plot showing the calculated difference in radiant energy leaving Earth at the level of the tropopause for 300 PPM and 600 PPM CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The effect is minimal and the Blue curve for 600 PPM CO2 exactly overlays the green plot for 300 PPM CO2 for most of the plot.

    Radiative Forcing, Double CO2
    Modtran3 v1.p upward irradiance at 20 km U.S. Standard Atmosphere

    At this time, it is an open question as to whether there is enough economically recoverable combustible carbon left in the ground to ever reach one full doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere: 560 PPM — See David Archibald, The Fate of All Carbon.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/13/the-fate-of-all-carbon/

  270. Spector,

    Spot on comment. Thanks.

    As I specifically stated would happen, ericgrimsrud now complains that the ever increasing amount of information that I post is never enough. He constantly moves the goal posts, in his deliberate and thoroughly dishonest attempt to avoid admitting the truth. His belief system is being destroyed before our eyes.

    Dr. Ernst Georg Beck collated more than 90,000 individual CO2 measurements by dozens of eminent, internationally esteemed scientists, including many Nobel laureates — at a time when that award meant something.

    Those 90,000+ CO2 titration measurements were taken in isolated locations such as unpopulated mountaintops, the desolate Ayershire coast, the windward sides of ships transiting the Atlantic, the Pacific, Arctic and Antarctic oceans, the Bearing Sea, the Sea of Otkhosk, the South Pacific, and many other isolated locations free from any human CO2 emissions.

    Those titration methods, made by honest scientists who cared very much about their reputations among their peers have been replicated, and show an accuracy within ±3% — only about 12 ppm @ 400 ppmv CO2. Dr. Beck’s meticulous research proves beyond any doubt that atmospheric CO2 levels have routinely exceeded 400 ppmv as recently as the 1940’s, and going back to the early 1800’s.

    Thus, it has been proven beyond any doubt that CO2 levels regularly exceed 400 ppmv. Grimsrud’s false assertion that CO2 was always below 280 ppmv has no basis in reality. Therefore, the CO2=CAGW conjecture has been thoroughly deconstructed. It is simply not true, as proven beyond doubt by repeated empirical experiments. Any claims to the contrary are nonsense, as is the false claim that CO2 is harmful.

  271. As ‘dahun’ says on another thread:

    “The entire global warming scenario consists of assuming a desired answer and going to any extreme and dishonest convolutions to try and prove the answer correct, completely disregarding and bastardizing science along the way.”

    That is exactly the same reprehensible tactic that the flaming troll uses here: he assumes that AGW is causing global warming.

    The complete lack of empirical evidence shows that is nonsense. An honest person would look at the evidence and draw his conclusions. But not grimsrud, whose mind is already made up and closed tight.

    This site is one of very few that allows everyone to post their point of view, and let the market of ideas sift the truth from the chaff. But grimsrud has been consistently proven wrong, yet he continues to flame the threads. It is indicative of his mental incapacity.

    My sympathies for grimsrud’s mental illness, but the mods should really put a stop to grimsrud’s flaming, incessant, anti-science trollery. That kind of insanity should be reserved for Tamino and similar nutty alarmist blogs, where grimsrud and David Appell are like-minded crazies. At some point mentally ill like grimsrud need to get the boot, for the good of the discussion by everyone else. Grimsrud’s On/Off switch has been wired around, and he cannot be shut off; the end result of his incurable cognitive dissonance.

  272. To DBoehm,

    I asked you a very simple scientific question related to the measurements you provided us.

    Concerning your aledged 100 ppm increase in background CO2 around the years, 1943, which set of measurements do you think is in error? Is it the measurements by Beck or is it the stomata data? As you know the stomata data show no such peaks in background CO2 during that period.

    Your “answer” above was that I am “mentally ill”. Even if I were “mentally ill”, and there are no compelling reasons for which others think I am, your response is still no answer. If you understand my very simple question, why can you not answer it?

    Eric

  273. grimsrud,

    As I specifically predicted, no matter how much information I provide, you will never be satisfied. You are simply trolling, as usual. You cannot be unaware that I have never mentioned the word ‘stomata’. Therefore, your entire comment is a complete strawman, as usual.

    You are arguing over what someone else said because you have zero credible facts to support your nonsense. The planet is not behaving as was widely predicted by your anti-science clique. That fact would be sufficient for every honest scientist to reassess their conjecture. But of course, there is no honesty in you.

  274. To D Boehm,

    But you do know about the stomata measurements as well as the ice core record, right? neither of which indicate a 100 ppm CO2 peak in 1943. So what are you suggestioning? Are you suggesting that the Beck data is correct and the ice core and stomata data are wrong? Note that I am not asking you for “more” evidence here. We are now onto the next level of making deductions from the evidence. That is how sciences works, you know.

    ERic

  275. grimsrud says:

    “But you do know about the stomata measurements…”

    No, I don’t. As I explained, that is not my specialty. And from your comments you are ignorant of the subject, too. But like a child you keep trying to corner me with your lame arguments. You are not intelligent enough to do that.

    Why do you constantly set up your strawman arguments, instead of addressing what I posted? Of course it is because you cannot refute Dr. Beck’s collation of more than 90,000 accurate measurements, showing that CO2 was much higher at times than what you claimed. When you are wrong, as you are here, you should admit it. That is how honest science works. But you are mentally ill, and cannot ever admit that facts falsify your beliefs. You suffer from incurable cognitive dissonance, as Leon Festinger diagnosed it.

    I do not know about how plant stomata respond to changes in CO2. But it appears that you believe they actively vary their stomata size, like animals dilate their pupils. That seems wrong to me. The simplest answer is natural selection. Stomata are selected in succeeding generations based on atmospheric CO2 levels. Therefore, there is no contradiction. There never is when science is involved.

    The fact remains that numerous highly esteemed scientists took more than 90,000 CO2 measurements in isolated locations from the 1800’s to the 1950’s, with verifiable, replicable accuracy of ±3%, and they recorded thousands of CO2 measurements up to ≈450 ppmv, and even higher. Thus, your entire premise is falsified. CO2 routinely rises far above 280 ppmv, with no resulting temperature spikes. And AGW still has as little empirical evidence as Mrs. Keech had for her flying saucer.

    An honest person would acknowledge that his conjecture claiming that CO2 levels always remained under 280 ppm for the past 800K years has been proven to be wrong, falsified by an enormous volume of empirical evidence. But not you. Like Mrs. Keech’s Seekers, when the flying saucer didn’t appear as predicted, it did not mean there was no flying saucer, it just meant that it was delayed. In your case, you will never give up your falsified belief system either. For you, the flying saucer is just late. But it is still coming.

  276. D Böehm says:
    November 18, 2012 at 3:17 am

    grimsrud says:

    “But you do know about the stomata measurements…”

    No, I don’t. As I explained, that is not my specialty….
    _______________________________
    Actually the stomata data shows the Ice Core data is way too low when measuring CO2 levels in the past.

    A simple explanation is here. The corruption is shown here and here.

    A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing
    Thomas B. van Hoof*,†,‡, Friederike Wagner-Cremer†, Wolfram M. Kürschner†, and Henk Visscher†

    …Estimates of preindustrial CO2 levels are available not only from Antarctic ice but also from leaves of land plants preserved in peat and lake deposits. Particularly in a wide variety of woody plants, the genetically controlled inverse relationship between numbers of leaf-stomata (gas exchange pores) and ambient CO2 concentration during the growth period (19) permits detection and quantification of past CO2 changes by analyzing time-series data on stomatal frequency. The Fourth Assessment Report recognizes that stomatal frequency may provide reasonable constraints on past CO2 variations on long geological time scales (105 to 108 years), but does not appreciate the applicability of this proxy for identifying decadal to millennial scale CO2 changes during the Holocene Epoch (6). Yet, the integrity of short-term leaf-based CO2 changes has been verified by fine-resolution analysis of the lifetime CO2 responsiveness of individual trees (20) and by numerous other response curves based on well dated herbarium material and subfossil leaves, which consistently mimic the ongoing CO2 increase apparent from Mauna Loa instrumental monitoring (21–24). Reproducibility of leaf-based CO2 reconstructions is further demonstrated by coeval stomatal frequency records of taxonomically, geographically, and ecologically contrasting tree species, which confirm a coupling between CO2 anomalies and early Holocene cooling events (25–28)….
    For the last millennium, pronounced preindustrial CO2 variability has been reconstructed on the basis of needles of Tsuga heterophylla (western hemlock) from Mount Rainier, Washington, USA (29), and leaf remains of Quercus robur (English oak) from the southeastern part of the Netherlands (27, 30). The timing of the detected CO2 changes is in good agreement with perturbations observed in Antarctic ice core records. Remarkably, however, reconstructed amplitudes >30 ppmv significantly exceed the maximum shifts of 12 ppmv CO2 found in Antarctic ice. These discrepancies can be explained as an effect of smoothing resulting from diffusion processes in the firn layer at the site of the ice cores. Such processes lead to a reduced signal of the original atmospheric variability and may obscure high-frequency CO2 variations

    The presence of high-amplitude CO2 fluctuations as documented by stomatal frequency studies may falsify the IPCC concept that preindustrial temperature variability is constrained by relatively stable atmospheric CO2 levels…

    So there you have it. The Plant stomata back up Beck’s study showing CO2 is not stable but variable and what is more the ice core data “Smears” the data wiping out the high data values.

Comments are closed.